Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Additional notes: RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments. While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources. Start a new discussion

Most active discussions

After Midnight Project

Just to let you know. After talking to an informed source via Derek Gallegos( band manager), After Midnight Project has been disbanded.

What is the meaning of this note? Geo Swan (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lizzie Phelan

This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable (lots of radical left "news" sites, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrownP/draft

Sources

cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=585085%7Cpublisher=Pharmacy Choice|accessdate=21 October 2011

cite web|title=Blue Cross of California Appoints Josh Valdez Senior Vice President, Network Development|url=http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=1852&cha=14%7Cpublisher=Hispanic PR Wire|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games.|url=http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-facilities-hospitals/5153373-1.html%7Cpublisher=AllBusiness.com%7Caccessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://pressrelated.com/press-release-aveta-inc-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico-inc.html%7Cpublisher=Press Related|accessdate=21 October 2011

cite web|title=JOSH VALDEZ APPOINTED TO HHS REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE POST|url=http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010917a.html%7Cpublisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services|accessdate=27 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games|url=http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20050607006105/en/1191710/Josh-Valdez-Named-Man-Year-Hollenbeck-Youth%7Cpublisher=Berkshire Hathaway|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Man Of The Year|url=http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org/pdf/New_Press_Release.pdf%7Cpublisher=Hollenbeck Youth Center|accessdate=19 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Of Blue Cross of California Appointed to Advisory Council of The National Institutes Of Health|url=http://www.lexdon.com/article/josh_valdez_of_blue_cross/105429.html%7Cpublisher=Lexdon Business Library|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=The Latino Coalition Honors The Most Influential Hispanics|url=http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/the_latino_coalition_honors_the_most_influential_hispanics/%7Cpublisher=Havana Journal, Inc|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Josh Valdez Appointed to State Health Policy and Data Advisory Commission.|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Josh+Valdez+Appointed+to+State+Health+Policy+and+Data+Advisory...-a0146751865%7Cpublisher=Free Library|accessdate=20 October 2011

cite web|title=Aveta names Josh Valdez president of MSO of Puerto Rico|url=http://www.poandpo.com/who-is-promoted/aveta-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico/%7Cpublisher=Histerius%7Caccessdate=21 October 2011

Sites

http://www.pharmacychoice.com

http://www.hispanicprwire.com

http://www.allbusiness.com

http://www.pressrelated.com

http://www.hhs.gov

http://www.businesswire.com

http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org

http://www.lexdon.com

http://www.havanajournal.com

http://www.thefreelibrary.com

http://www.poandpo.com

Talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CrownP

Is JesusFreakHideout reliable?

An editor has questioned the reliability of the website Jesus Freak Hideout as a source for band genres. The discussion can be found here. I have asked about this site once before, and that time it was found to be reliable. Also, it is listed as a reliable source on the Wikiproject for Christian music. The editor opposing says that this consensus does not overcome it being self-published, and that the mentions in third-party sources are merely trivial.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes JFH is a RS. They have some sort of editorial board and a staff. In the realm of music, especially underground music, trying to claim that all RSes should be written by full time professional journalists is crazy. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that answer is going to satisfy this particular editor. I think he would appreciate a more in depth examination of the issue.--¿3family6 _contribs 21:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the particular editor in question. Finding legitimate reliable sources for underground music is not all that hard; there are professional, print magazines dedicated to the subject (and websites that otherwise pass the necessary checks). If a band is sufficiently underground to not be featured, with significant, non-trivial coverage, in these sources, that should immediately call into question their notability and hence their inclusion. Having an "editorial staff" of amateurs does not somehow miraculously allow a WP:SPS to pass WP:RS; just as anyone could set up a website to air their opinions about music releases, anyone could set up a website with their mates (or even people they've found over the Internet) as an editorial staff, without making it a legitimate source. If their contributors have not otherwise been recognised as "experts" in their field (in Wikispeak terms, they been published by an independent, third-party source), what they have to say is irrelevant. The content of the site in question isn't published by an independent, third-party source, and as far as I can tell its contributors are enthusiastic amateurs. The site's mentions on other sites/books is merely trivial. We do not, for example, use Metal Archives as a reliable source (ever, ever, ever), even though they technically have an "editorial staff"; I have no idea what the comparative Alexa ratings are (not that it would matter), but I offer it as an example of something that we by vast consensus disregard, despite having "some sort of editorial board and a staff". JFHO fails WP:RS by a country mile, in my opinion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you don't use a site is a personal choice. All RS requires is editorial control. In addition, Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music quotes JFH when discussing albums and bands. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How much is it quoted? Is it just the odd mention, or is the site used as a key source?--¿3family6 _contribs 01:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me exactly within WP:RS it states that all that is required of a website is arbritrary "editorial control"? I personally, for example, run a website that others contribute to; none are professional, and it clearly fails WP:RS. I do however have "editorial control". I think your reasoning is flawed, unless you can point me towards some part of the guideline I have missed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I agree that there is more to an RS than just editorial oversight. The content must be generated by an actual staff, for starters. I have done some digging, and I've found that numerous sources refer to JFH. For starters, they are used as a reference for Newsboys in Refuel: The Complete New Testament for Guys from Thomas Nelson Publishers, though I can't view the full reference because of being limited to a preview. One of the staff of JFH has written at least one book, but that just makes him a reliable source, not the whole site. However, the site has had non-trivial coverage in HM Magazine: Circleslide getting JFH's Reader's Choice award and House of Hero's playing for the site's 14th anniversary. HM Magazine also gave fairly extensive coverage of a story done by JFH for an album by Fireflight. There are also numerous, more trivial mentions of reviews by JFH: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].--¿3family6 _contribs 14:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what weight this has, but I have found the following: On About.com, Kim Jones has Jesusfreakhideout listed as a review source, listed along with highly reputable sources such as Christianity Today and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. There are several, admittedly fairly trivial, mentions of JFH reviews in Christian Today: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. CCM Magazine also has a brief mention: [17]. Christian media outlet Cross Rhythms uses JFH extensively as a source for interviews, as can be seen from this search of the site. Finally, Christian webzine Rapzilla, which is used by Salem Publishing to cover Christian hip hop news, also mentions the site: [18], [19], [20], [21].--¿3family6 _contribs 16:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some more findings: One of the staple sources of reviews for TodaysChristianMusic.com, a website run by CCM Magazine. The number of articles referencing JFH reviews, ranging from a quick mention to a major quote, is so long that I'll just give a link to the Google results. Two articles I will isolate are references demonstrating that JFH has exclusive music video streaming before a video hits other media sources: [22], [23].

There are also brief mentions of JFH in Crosswalk.com:[24], [25], [26], [27]. Also a mention by a writer for Beliefnet: [28]. The site Louder Than the Music list JFH among "major web sites" such as Gospel Music Channel.com, Beliefnet, and CCM Magazine, but I am not sure how reliable that website is.

But here is the most significant find: On page 12 of this PDF of a CCM Magazine issue, it states how JFH has become a major Christian music online resource.--¿3family6 _contribs 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

In another CCM Magazine link, I found that John DiBiase was part of the magazine's review panel. Whether this specific info establishes the site as reliable, I'm not sure, but it means anything written by John DiBiase should be.--¿3family6 _contribs 22:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As an outsider to this conversation (albeit an occasional patron of the site in question), it seems to me the 3family6's sources, both in number and quality, are more than enough to establish the site as a WP:RS, especially those last two PDFs.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So where does that leave this discussion?--¿3family6 _contribs 02:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I discovered this discussion by accident but I have some very strong opinion on JFH as well. The problem is that we've been discussing it as a single entity. I don't look at it that way. I view it as three distinct entities or with three different purposes. Its first purpose is information. It passes-on press releases without vetting the information. So when it passed-on a press release about Relient K's recent EP, it introduced an error in the release's title. Albeit, that error originated from the label. There are more examples of that. In one sense, it's redistribution of press releases is a good thing, but in this aspect it's a primary source and not acting in a journalistic manner.

The second way in which it distributes information is in band interviews. When interviewing and discussing issues with band members we hear directly from the artists. In this way, it is a good and reliable source.

The final way is in album reviews. Here, I find the site lacking. Not all of the reviews are done by professionals. They use terms, particularly around genres, because they're asked to rather than understanding the full scope of those terms. Their ratings are usually accurate and in short they're purely the opinion of one editor. The real question though is how much editorial oversight do reviewers receive, and how does that relate to similar mainstream magazines such as SPIN?

In summary, JFH, can be a RS, but it's not always one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So how do we determine that? Email or a Facebook message could work, but it would need to be verified.--¿3family6 _contribs 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, given what Walter Görlitz has said, I think you'd treat the press releases as primary sources, interviews as a mix of primary (what the band members say) and secondary (what the interviewer claims), and reviews as secondary, and base reliability decisions not so much on the site, but on the reviewer. So if a reviewer has been published in other reliable sources such as SPIN, we'd consider the reviewer reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The reviews generally have no oversight and are the least reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you verify that? I'm not being obstructive here, just trying to make sure we make a decision from solid evidence.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

No I can't verify that so let's exclude it completely as a source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The about page does say "The JFH Staff writers adhere to strict journalistic standards. Our editorial staff is independent of any artist/record label/management firm." Evidently there is some editorial review, but the site is vague. Maybe a question on the site's Facebook page could clear things up.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In general I agree with Walter's assessment. His summary is right "JFH, can be a RS, but it's not always one". I don't agree that their album reviews are necessarily lacking editorial oversight. Of course they are an opinion -- all album reviews are an opinion. I have found many JFH reviews on artists website and I added a few to the article. Obviously these artists feel that JFH reviews are important/reliable and the website is well-known to their fans. The website does reprint lots of press releases which are clearly labeled (and need to be treated as such). I was discouraged to see that Blackmetalbaz had removed almost all citations from the article (just because they were dead) right before slapping on the notability tag on November 14. They were placed in the article in 2007. Removal was against WP:LR so I restored them. And I added the Alexa ranking (before finding this discussion). Royalbroil 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So with reviews, it looks like they are reliable as reviews, but not as sources for things like band history or genres, unless written by someone who has previous material that is not self-published. Is that a good assessment?--¿3family6 _contribs 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the artists link to the reviews is simply an indication that they back the promotional material contained in them, not that they are reliable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with that.--¿3family6 _contribs 17:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So what is the consensus?--¿3family6 _contribs 14:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Graig Weich

Are the following webpages reliable for the notability of Graig Weich? I've been told that GPX Gaming and Geek Propaganda are "huge", but I'm not sure. Nightscream (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.gpxgaming.net/comic-books/446-interview-with-beyond-comics-graig-weich.html
• http://geekpropaganda.net/?p=4574
• http://geekpropaganda.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/graig-f-weich-is-part-of-what-makes-nyc-comic-con-fun/
• http://www.comicrelated.com/news/13785/watch-john-interview
• http://moarpowah.com/2011/10/27/silverwolfs-den-interview-with-graig-weich/
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/294-book-comic-company-interviews/8537-beyond-comics-interview
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/258-movie--series-interviews/8539-ravedactyl-life-beyond-death
• http://www.neocrisis.com/interviews/259-book-interviews/8538-code-name-justice-interview
• http://movieandeventreview.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/graig-weich/

Geek Propaganda's Alexa rank is 4,229,756 i think it is far from "huge"[29]. GPX Gaming's Alexa rank is 4,411,147 it too is far from "huge" [30]. Eopsid (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not the most central criterion. Reliability is. Anyone? Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that these sites have editorial oversight, or a reputation for reliable reporting? In regard to GPX Gaming, this is not reassuring. Moarpowah at least lists staff members, see [31], but these seem to me to fall into the realm of fansites, and we generally do not consider them reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to gauge whether a website has editorial oversight. I mean, sometimes there are About Us pages or contributors page that indicate this, but often there are not, which is why I come here to ask you guys. Is it true that GPX Gaming and KGeek have been mentioned on G4 and that MTV show about comics? And what precisely is it about that GPX page you linked to that troubles you? Nightscream (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pravda [online] an RS...

In this edit another contributor excised a reference to an article from Pravda, and replacing each instance with a {{cn}} tag. Their edit summary was simply "Pravda is not a RS".

So, I came here, and I have looked in the noticeboard's archives.

I see Pravda opinion pieces have been questioned. (here for instance...) The reference in question however is a fact article -- not an opinion piece.

And, frankly, I don't see a clear-cut consensus that Pravda is not reliable.

Has there ever been a consensus that Pravda is not a reliable source? Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There is Pravda and there is Pravda Online (although we have the latter redirecting to the former, they are not the same thing). A blanket claim that either is not an RS is totally wrong and the use of Pravda Online here seems to be appropriate in the absence of any reason for supposing that the facts are wrong, particularly since they do not seem to be the subject of dispute. --FormerIP (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be lingering Cold War animosity: Pravda in, say, 1950, was as unreliable on facts and figures as the Soviet Government. But even then, this sort of claim (the dates of the subject's travels), unless connected somehow with a Trotskyite plot, was generally reliable - no motive to create a new reality. But things have changed; and, in any case, is the date differently represented elsewhere? If not, use it as the best source we have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Pravda is a "reliable source" for some things, a primary source to be used with caution and disclaimers in others, a farcical propaganda source to be quoted for illustrative purposes in others. (Just like Fox News, actually!) In fact, this is a perfect case study of why the whole notion of so-called "reliable sources" is bogus. But I reckon this is the wrong tree to be barking that up, eh? By the way, there are multiple publications called Pravda since the fall of the USSR, which one are you talking about? And the paper in some periods was more, ummm, "reliable" than it was in others, which year are you talking about? Oy vey. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Koch Industries and Sunlight Foundation Blog

[32] is an edit with the summary

sunlight foundation blog is not a personal or group blog. blogs from reiable sources are permitted

Alas - I can not deem "sunlight foundation" to be an RS nor its blog to be valid for contentious claims (Koch Industries is closely linked to two specific BLPs). "Sunlight Foundation" is not a news organization, Paul Blumenthal, the author of the blog post, is not listed as a staff member or associate of the foundation in any way. The foundation [33] lacks even a "project editor" so cannot be assumed to do any factchecking at all. So is this blog a "reliable source" for the claims made? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not RS, not a notable source of opinion, not controlled editorially. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Another use of the Sunlight Foundation blog may be found at the BLP of George Kaiser, where it is used to make contentions about what "many experts, including the IRS, believe" about the legality of Kaiser's tax avoidance strategies.[34] Do the readers of this board have the same, or a different, reaction to the use at George Kaiser as they do at Koch Industries?--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They're not editorially controlled: the blog isn't reliable to make summary claims of expert and government belief in relation to tax law. Try newspaper's opinion pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, the Sunlight Foundation pages are not RS for anything - and especially for nothing contentious at all. My opinion is the same no matter what article tries using a non-RS source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They are a hacktivist group and usually their facts are correct. They run a website that is essentially a better interface to federal records. Whether the blogs are RS or not is a deeper question I don't have time to explore right now, but -- just making sure it gets its due or at least some of it. Elinruby (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So use them to locate the relevant federal records and cite those. Though you'll have problems finding the opinion and colour. We don't cite the Irish Worker's Solidarity Movement on the complexion of the Irish State; we don't cite the Australian Labor Party on the character of Tony Abbot. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be the way to go for the person that wants to use the information. I am hesitating over RS because it's my understanding that preferred sources are news blogs attached to publications (could be wrong about that) and while I think this keeps us from using good niche sources at times I understand the caution. It's hard to formulate a rule allows good blogs that does not also allow bad blogs. I'd say that according to my understanding, the group is fairly new and questionable as RS; editorial comment could be quoted as opinion but the editor should go to the federal records to support statements of fact. Note: I have encountered a similar issue in an article I am working on so while I am uninvolved with this one, I am not totally an outside opinion. For the record here is what they say about themselves: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/about/. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The sunlight foundation and opensecrets (primary source?) are now being used to state that the corporation donated money to Congressional candidates. [35]

The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle

Using the second source as [36] from opensecrets.org . That source, however, does not attribute the contributions to Koch Industries (which would violate Federal law and state laws) but to the two principal owners of Koch Industries. So is this source valid for making the claim as stated in Koch Industries? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Open Secrets is the interface I mentioned above. I am inclined to believe what it says. I am not totally certain how RS policy applies to it. I believe that excluding it would remove information that is very likely accurate, though, which would seem to be a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. But in any case, if the source says the owners made the contribution, then the article should say that the owners made the contribution. It's usual to look at contributions from the principals and employees of a corporation, but the article should not falsely claim that contributions were made that would violate laws if the statement was true. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight, as observed above, is not a reliable source due to its lack of an editorial policy. Secondly that sentence misrepresents the source: 1) the figure is wrong; 2) it misrepresents donations from the controllers of Koch Industries as donations from Koch Industries. Thirdly I share your primary source concerns: opensecrets is pitched at media, with a mission to communicate to media, and don't present meaningful political analyses themselves. I don't think that their data is corrupt, but, neither do I think their data is straight forward to analyse. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked your assertion that the statement is wrong, but if it is, that needs to be fixed. I also don't think that real facts should be excluded, and the federal records are not that easy to find or cite, which is the problem that Open Secrets tries to address. HTH. Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the author of the edit that provoked this question. A few things:

opensecrets.org . ... does not attribute the contributions to Koch Industries (which would violate Federal law and state laws). Not so. see for yourself. It specifically labels its page on the contributions "Koch Industries". What opensecrets does say is the top contributors to Koch Industries contributions were Charles and David Koch. In any case, it's not just Sunlight and Open Secret that talk about "Koch Industries" political contributions, the head of Koch Industries does. Do they know something about Federal law and state laws that Collect doesn't?

AFAICT the "relevant federal records", i.e the Federal Election Commission online data is pretty raw and not particularly easy to use. For example here it provides names of recipients of campaign contributions from a source (Koch Industries PAC) but there are hundreds of contributions in alphabetical order, with no breakdown by party not even totaled for each candidate. This is what makes opensecrets and Sunlight very helpful.

On the Koch Industries talk age Collect has proclaimed that the result of the above discussion is: opensecrets.org is considered a "primary source" at the same noticeboard, and the claim that Koch Industries made the donations was roundly condemned there as not representing what the source says in any way.

There are a lot of "contentious claims" made about Koch Industries and its two principle owners, but I have never heard it/them deny that they contribute millions of dollars to a lot of mostly Republican political candidates. So, Collect, why all this time and energy on such a non-controversial issue? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The donations are by individuals who happen to own a company ... not by the company (which would violate federal and state laws) , which is what your edit stated directly. Do you see that distinction? BTW, the adjective is "principal". Collect (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, Boogalouie, those numbers may be accurate (I suspect) but that doesn't mean that David Koch sat down and wrote a check for 2.2 million dollars. Look at the limits on campaign contributions. What the have done is analyze some large companies to see if their employees (through sheer co-incidence of course) just so happened to contribute to the same candidate as the boss. This will be clearer if you compare the Comcast page for example, then look at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

The main problem with using federal contribution records is not actually how hard they are to use; that would be original research, which is a nono at Wikipedia. I do not know if there has already been a discussion about the reliability of Open Secrets. To my eye (not all that tutored in wikipolicies) it's a website, and websites are treated with caution but can be used. With caution. Hopefully if I am wrong about that someone will tell us. Meanwhile, violating election laws is a serious charge. Tom Delay went to jail for sloppiness with corporate contributions, didn't he? so fix the sentence to say that the owners gave the money, then you two can work out whether Open Secrets is a RS or not. Let me know, I may want to use it. Elinruby (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is reading this I emailed Sunlight foundation and got a reply to some of our questions:
How can you say Koch Industries or News Corp or whoever gave money when it's really employees of the company?
When sunlight says contributions from Koch industries , it means "contributions coming from the Koch Industries' political action committee and employees and their family members of Koch Industries and its subsidiaries." Here's a sample look up of "recipient: pompeo (i.e. Rep. Mike Pomeo (KS-R))" from "Organization: Koch Industries." from the "transparency data" with a list of employees and spouses (high level employees). Here's a reply from somebody from sunlight (Bill Allison) explaining "why campaign finance data is categorized and reported on the way it is."
where does sunlight get its money numbers from (aside from the Federal Election Commission)?
Explained here. "Our campaign finance data comes from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which in turn gets its data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)." With it, it creates a database called transparency data. With that data it creates influence explorer database.
Who is Paul Blumenthal and why is he not on the Sunlight Found list of staff?
"he was Sunlight's lead writer for five years and expert in Campaign Finance issues. He left us a few months back for an opportunity with a different organization." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading this. Thanks for sending the email. I think it's a useful source and that we should not exclude valid information. I also think that precise definitions are important in legal matters, so if the article in fact said that the corporation gave yea much when this is a compiled number, then the article needs to say that this is a number compiled from adding together the contributions of employees, esp. if omitting the qualifier makes it seem that a law was broken. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks. This is Tom Lee, director of Sunlight Labs, which is the technical wing of the Sunlight Foundation. Let me issue a few points of clarification. First, Sunlight considers itself bound to high editorial standards. Our reporting group is headed by Bill Alison, an experienced journalist and nine-year veteran of the Center for Public Integrity. He oversaw Paul's work during the latter's time at Sunlight. Although I'm not sure if we have a posted editorial policy in the formal sense that I take it Wikipedia requires (I'm unclear on what the reqs are -- link?), we a) issue updates and corrections to posts when we become aware of errors b) are a nonpartisan organization and c) do our best to adhere to journalistic norms (as per the SPJ Code of Ethics) in our reported work.

Links: reliable source and I predict the next question will be original research if you would not mind addressing that also...speaking as one that would like to use this data. Elinruby (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! Unfortunately I don't see any text matching "editorial policy" on that first page. I may need a more specific pointer. Having read the page, I do believe that Sunlight would qualify as a RS, though I understand that there may be nuances I'm missing. I think I understand the proscription on original research, but it seems as though it only pertains to Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what it means for Sunlight's content. For what it's worth, we do generate original research, both quantitative (e.g. regressions) and qualitative (e.g. reporting on phone calls to sources).Sbma44 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG"(link);

Also: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source."link

This may also apply, especially the second paragraph. I think it gets overlooked a lot. Elinruby (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight gets its federal campaign finance data from and helps to support the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs OpenSecrets.org. CRP's data originates from the Federal Election Commission. Unfortunately, the FEC's data does not come with usable identifiers. Because of this, to get any kind of an aggregate picture of the donor side of our political system, a large amount of additional work is necessary -- some automated, some manual. When it comes to this work, CRP is the only game in town. If you have read a US political fundraising total associated with a business or individual, it has almost certainly come from CRP's work and data. They have honed their methodology over their long history, and it is a standard that is respected and used by journalists, researchers and campaign finance professionals. This includes the decision to include employees' giving in aggregate company figures -- please see the post linked to by Ryan for more. Although I realize it may at first strike some as an unusual methodological technique, it is in fact an established approach that was developed both to reflect employee giving "encouraged" by company leadership, and to reflect the reality that political influence is not limited to quid-pro-quo transactions coordinated at the executive level. Legislators are very aware of who employs their constituents and donors. The resulting legislative biases are real and the public deserves to know about them.

I would respectfully submit that the RS discussion underway here reflects a lack of a familiarity with campaign finance reporting norms as are commonly used by the US journalist and NGO communities. Naturally, I'm happy to answer any more questions or to respond to formal requirements surrounding our editorial policy.

I'm comfortable with the idea that employee contributions are part of an employer's influence, but don't we need to make it clear that these are not donations from the corporation itself? And by the way, for my own information, is this bundling or is that something else? I am hazy on the fine print of the law, esp since Citizens United. Thanks for your thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That distinction is a valid one to make, and I don't have a strong opinion about what choice Wikipedia editors should make. I will say that within campaign finance reporting norms, it is normal and acceptable to refer to giving from an employer that includes the contributions of its employees. The analogy I would offer is this: sports journalists might refer to a quarterback "throwing three touchdowns" in a game. In fact, it might be the case that two of those touchdowns were thrown to receivers who weren't yet in the end zone, but then ran into it to score. The norm within sports reporting is to attribute such a touchdown to the quarterback (and the receiver, too). This might strike some as odd, and you could legitimately make the decision not to count such touchdowns if the analytic point you were making required an appraisal of touchdown-scoring outside the normal style in which it's reported. But the most common (and, I think, useful) way to report the quarterback's total for that game is to say "three touchdowns" rather than one. It's the same with grouping contributions.

Per your other question: in some cases this behavior might qualify as bundling, but not all. And whether it's reported as bundling is, unfortunately, a separate question. Election law is murky, and the enforcement of the rules governing contributions is outrageously lax. Sbma44 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) To anyone else reading: looks like editorial review to me, no? @Tom Lee -- does Bill Allison review all blog submissions? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@ElinRuby: Bill or a deputized senior editor reviews all content published by our reporting group. A senior staff member (usually from the writer's department) reviews all blog posts (and similar content -- ephemera like tweets are not formally reviewed) we produce, although depending on the time-sensitivity of the subject and the personnel involved that review can sometimes occur as much as a few hours after publication. If errors are detected we of course add updates or other notices of correction to the original post.

• Frankly, no, it doesn't look reliable and personal correspondence doesn't look like an editorial policy. Personal correspondence from politicised opinion works doesn't really influence me because it isn't in the public domain and irrefutably attached to the organisation's profile. This political body doesn't meet the standards of RS. And no, Tom, we don't have a policy that you could rapidly reduce to an analysis to make yourself reliable—policy doesn't work that way on wikipedia, and in the area of reliable sourcing something much closer to a "common law" exists. But consider, for comparative purposes, at the moment your organisation represents itself and its editorial control in the manner that religious sects, microscopic political parties (wsws.org is a useful comparator here, as are some of the US anarcho-capitalist thinktank "journals"), self-published sources, and aggregators). Compare the self-representation online of those "sources" with even the most half-arsed peer reviewed journal, or a community newspaper. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo I hope I haven't given offense in some way. To be honest, some of the parts of your message are unclear to me; also, it seems like there's a sense of animus behind your remarks that I'm anxious to understand and defuse. I hope you'll expand on what you consider to be the problem. Until then I'll say just a few things:

• I don't believe I made any reference to personal correspondence. As I mentioned, when editorial review reveals a problem with something we published -- which is infrequent but not unheard of -- we publish corrections or updates in a way that's attached to the original post. I assume you aren't asking that that review process itself be public -- no newspaper or journal publishes that process that I'm aware of.
• I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "politicised opinion works" -- again, we are a nonpartisan organization. Our money-in-politics reporting frequently prompts angry opinions to the contrary, but it's just not true. I would invite anyone upset about our coverage of the Koch brothers to have a look at how much we've written about Charlie Rangel, to name just one example.
• I certainly respect that Wikipedia's RS standards must remain flexible and are not a checklist. But I'm afraid I'm still not clear on what about our policies is unacceptable. Our reporting is produced by journalists -- some went to journalism school, others have worked at newspapers, many are members of IRE/NICAR/APME/etc, and all of them pride themselves on their status as journalists. They implement an editorial workflow and set of standards that's are in keeping with those of their profession. I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse! I just really don't understand the objection. 12.154.244.225 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I think Fifelfoo's misunderstood me as saying that since you are talking to us here you therefore meet the editorial review criterion. I meant that the *content* of what you are saying appears to *me* to amount to editorial control.

@Fifelfoo, if you had a new publication or website and someone was saying it might not be reliable, would you not want to know why? Surely he deserves a courteous explanation, especially since it does not seem to have occurred to him that anyone could have doubts about the matter :) This is why he is talking about professional standards organizations.

@Tom Lee, if I can in turn try to channel Fifelfoo, "reliable source" is not like the seal of good housekeeping. It usually depends on context. For instance, is Cosmo in French reliable for the name of a Japanese singer? This turns out to be a rather deep question, with MTV and the Associated Press the deciding factors. The kanji form of the name remains unclear. (See the YUI discussion above, as well as the completely serious discussions on whether Time and Wired meet the standard in specific situations. Welcome to Wikipedia).

Ha, fair enough! I can certainly understand that there may be no hard-and-fast, per-organization ruling about RS status. I hope that for this instance, at least, I've provided enough information to allay the concerns that were raised. Sbma44 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a good place to mention that while I have written some news articles in the past and have had a Wikipedia account for some time, until recently I primarily used it to fix spelling errors and the like, and of course make the traditional complaints on discussion pages that the point I was researching was not addressed ;P So I am not an authority on reliable source policy and in fact seem to be having trouble getting my questions here into a format that allows an answer (and wish someone would help me with that, by the way). But neither are anyone else's opinions definitive, you see, except in the rare instance where many editors agree. That does happen, for instance blogs at the New York Times and Economist and blogs at the Guardian. Notice that it's not the print publication that's questioned, it's the blogs? But the deciding factor is often that there's a well-known news organization there that has a reputation for checking its facts?

So let me try to state the issue, and if I am wrong I am certain that someone will let me know. The idea is that in an age where $1.99 gets you a domain name and for a few pennies more a web hosting account may get thrown in, the mere existence of a webpage that says something does not prove that the particular something is a fact. I am sure you are with me so far. We've all heard jokes about facts found on the internet. Blogs are particularly suspect as they often may amount to some guy in his pajamas. That guy may be correct, of course, and much of the science in internet research lies in identifying the blogs that usually are correct on a given topic, but ah, citing them on Wikipedia is another matter. How to distinguish, as a matter of policy, Ars Technica from My Awesome Website or gregpalast.com from IthinkXsucks.com?

So one guideline is that blogs on the websites of formal news organizations, which are subject to review by those organizations, usually qualify. A retraction policy and a general air of being a source that is going to be around if someone wants to verify the reference also helps. Although I cannot think of a better formulation (yet) I (personally) think this causes all sorts of strangeness. Declan McCullagh appears to be an authority on internet matters on his employer's website but perhaps not on his own, for instance, even on the very same questions of fact. Welcome to Wikipedia. Because.... another guideline says that in general self-published sources are not reliable. Exceptions might apply if enough people decide that he is an expert.

Expertise is hard to determine, and random users of Wikipedia aren't assumed to be able to do this, and for good reason. But then you have an author of an internet protocol implementation being declared not-reliable on the subject of that internet protocol because he's speaking in a white paper hosted on a filesharing site. I actually understand the reasoning here, but the consequences are perverse. He *becomes* -- I think, haven't checked here -- a reliable source because a congresswoman asks Sandia Laboratories for a expert opinion. That expert opinion cites the white paper. The Sandia answer and the white paper *still* aren't strictly-speaking "reliable" until she puts them both up on her website. Even though she's the one asking the question, and the answer is by any stretch of the imagination definitive because of what Sandia Laboratories does. And notice, that answering expert opinion relies heavily on the originally-cited "not-reliable" white paper.

I am spelling all this out in hopes someone smarter than I will come up with a better way, but again, this is not a polemic. If there is a better way I don't know what it is. Wikipedia does not assume its editors have subject matter expertise and should not -- I've edited several on topics of which I knew nothing at all. Adding verbs to sentences is a contribution ;)

So perhaps you see why I asked if all material was reviewed. I would like to assure @Fifelfoo that I've not seen bias on the data pages, at least not of the type he seems to think. I personally would like to use the numbers on music and film industry contributions, which are cough very generous on both sides of the aisle. Obama's are astronomical, incidentally. It's not a partisan site.

This brings up the matter of original research, which is banned on Wikipedia. Editors are not subject matter experts on Wikipedia, even when we are, and we are not allowed to assert a fact simply because we know it is true. It must be attributed if at all surprising, which I am sure will not come as a shock to you either. The source for the statement must be verifiable, which rules out for instance letters that an editor might have in his attic, but not those that are available in a public archive, the difference being that the latter *can* be verified if enough effort is made. The Open Secrets site is primary data according to one editor's opinion above. A secondary source like the blog post would solve Boogalouie's sourcing problem, if the blog is determined to be reliable for this purpose.

So. Hopefully that helps somebody that's reading this. I am going to wander off now and catch my breath. Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ElinRuby this seems like an interesting and useful conversation. As you might imagine, my most immediate concern is addressing any misgivings that the Wikipedia community might have about Sunlight and its reliability (if there's more that can be usefully said there, let me know!). Otherwise, though, it seems like the conversation is expanding a bit beyond the specific scope of the Koch/Sunlight RS question, in which case it might be best if I bow out and leave you all to it. Sbma44 (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So.....this one is just going to hang undecided it seems? Did my rant scare everyone off? Elinruby (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Chav

Are either of these reliable for the article on the UK social stereotype?

• Jardine, Crombie; Bok, Lee (11 May 2006). The Chav Guide to Life. Crombie Jardine Publishing.
• Wallace, Mia; Spanner, Clint (12 July 2005). Chav! A User's Guide to Britain's New Ruling Class. Transworld Publishers. ISBN 978-0-553-81713-3.

I'm saying not, given that there are many sources in the mainstream press and also some academic sources, but someone disagrees suggested it be raised here. Many thanks for further opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Not reliable and not reliable. No signs of the standard features of sociological or anthropological texts. No citations, inline references, references to methodology, data collection, question construction, literatures. The introductions don't discuss the scope or span of the work. The publishers are in the sub-coffee table grade in the layout design and market segment. We should not be using these books on wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not, for the reasons Fifelfoo gives and also because they are humorous books - they are not even purporting to be accurate on specifics. Barnabypage (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

History books prior to Leopold von Ranke

I remember seeing in this noticeboard, people talking about pre-Ranke history books (who do not meet his standard definition) as primary source and not secondary. I wonder if this classification is just an inside-wiki thing or there are actually scholarly sources supporting it. Your consideration is appreciated.Kazemita1 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Modern historical scholarship begins with Ranke's methodology—history done in the style of Ranke, and subsequently, is modern in the full sense. This relates to the concept of reliability being a spectrum, and in the case of history, we prefer the highest quality works. WP:HISTRS is a beta document describing best practice for wikipedians writing historical articles on the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. Gibbon is a secondary source; so is Prescott; so is (Barthold) Niebuhr. The problem with them is that they are dated; too much work, too many discoveries, too much discussion, has gone on since. But the same applies to Ranke himself, to Mommsen, to Trevelyan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To get somewhat snide, Gibbon's self-perception of method is inferior to Ranke's. The emphasis at RS/N has always been on method, practice and peering with historians. It is harder to give a hard and fast rule about how fast a certain sub-discipline moves in terms of theoretical currency. Ranke's self conscious method stands out much clearer as a statement of "this is what they have to look like to be considered credible." Gibbon's method seems significantly analogous to Ranke's. I can't myself think of an article where we'd use either as a secondary source due to new availabilities of sources, and new theoretical methods. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And Ranke's self-perception is not quite matched by his practice. Since we agree on other grounds that more modern historians are the desirable sources, can we call this settled? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Boing Boing editorial used as attribution for editor's opinion?

The article is Stop Online Piracy Act. As there was a rush to cover a lot of material in a short time (there was a committee hearing on the bill Nov 16) I let this discussion go at the time, but I'd like some feedback, primarily out of curiosity. The quote was rather long and the article now contains many other quotes so it may not go back in even if there's a consensus that Boing Boing is reliable for this purpose.

It does seem to me that it is, though, and if it is not, I'd like some feedback on why it isn't, in furtherance of my wiki-education. So. I have looked at the previous three mentions of Boing Boing on this board. None got a great deal of response.

• One seems to say that Boing Boing's website can be used for attribution in a mention of a Boing Boing staffing issue in the site's Wikipedia article, which is substantive and rated B-class by the way, so the publication is notable to the Wikipedia community.
• Another mention here, concerning an article on an Australian ISP, discounts it as a blog. The discussion page for that article also shows editors agreeing that the Boing Boing citation was unnecessary since a print newspaper had also written on the policy they wanted to document.
• The third revolves around whether Boing Boing + Wikileaks is more reliable than a literary publication called The Believer for an article about a libel suit over an incest allegation withdrawn by the alleged victim after the story aired on CBS. It seems to have drawn some "maybe" answers without convincing the advocate for The Believer or really reaching consensus, although the literary magazine seemed to have more and firmer responses.

I feel it's one of the online publications that does not fit the RS policy very well, but don't really know a lot about its track record for accuracy. I would not quote it for startling facts, but here is how I did use it -- please comment.

The issue in the SOPA article is changes to copyright law that the the proposed legislation would make. Cory Doctorow, an Boing Boing co-editor, has his own B-class article describing him as a "blogger, journalist, and science fiction author who serves as co-editor of the blog Boing Boing...an activist in favour of liberalising copyright laws and a proponent of the Creative Commons organization." He has published a book on the topic of copyright for which Tim O'Reilly wrote a forward (see footnote 36 of the wikipedia article). He has been a Fulbright scholar at the University of Southern California and director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. There's more, but I think that qualifies him to speak on matters of copyright, doesn't it? He does not have a mention on this noticeboard.

The material that got removed went: Canadian journalist and blogger Cory Doctorow, who co-founded the popular social media site Boing Boing, explains his objection to that process: "When small sites, and it's the small sites that get turned off in the night and no one for the most part notices, say my friend's political blog or news site gets blocked by the US government and she has no way to get it back up even though everything she did was legal according to current law, and no one can help her except she can choose to file suit to defend herself, I feel like I die inside a little," cited to http://boingboing.net/2011/11/11/stop-sopa-save-the-internet.html.

This is an opinion, and the citation was used for attribution. I believe that Boing Boing would be RS for this purpose but if I am mistaken I'd appreciate it someone could explain why.

A second, slightly different question also, if I may: The same edit removed a citation to the same article that was meant to support "The US Attorney-General could force US-based ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to stop doing business with, and search engines to stop displaying results for, sites found to infringe on copyright." I rather would have thought this was a surprising statement and actually meant to go get a quote for the Washington Post or something, but I saw this:

"If a copyrights holder disliked links you have on your site, they could simply file a complaint with a payment processor (Visa, PayPal), who would then have 5 days to respond to their request or risk legal ramifications. If bills like this are allowed to pass, we'll be spending another $47 million dollars every year to help corporations fill out and enforce Internet blacklists.

"Sites that would be legal under the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions would now risk losing everything for allowing user generated content."

which did seem to support the statement in the meanwhile. The statement itself apparently is uncontroversial though, as it was left and only the citation was removed. A somewhat modified version remains in the article today. ("After delivering a court order, the U.S. Attorney-General (AG) could require US-directed Internet service providers, ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to suspend doing business with sites found to infringe on federal criminal intellectual property laws and take "technically feasible and reasonable measures" to prevent access to the infringing site." - I dislike this wording, but it's clearly talking about the same set of facts.)

My second question has two parts: Would Doctorow/Boing Boing have been a reliable source for this statement, and two, if so, could it be used for the quote that was in place when it was removed? Thank you kindly for reading this and for any thoughts that you may have. Elinruby (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page and rephrase your request for RS/N editors to comment, as I find your exposition confusing in the extreme. For each claim, follow the process at the top of the article, in a clearly separate group of text. In particular dot points may help you. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Was wondering why nobody answered. It's that far out of format? My apologies. I don't have time for structural edits just this second, but I'll come back and fix this, probably later today. Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is just so confusingly written it is impossible to tell what the source is, what the link to the source is, where you're describing the source, what you're describing the source's use in the article as, what the article is, and what's ancillary discussion. It doesn't help that you're asking for three[?] sources to be evaluated at once (easy!) but you weave them into each other so I can't make head nor tail. I'm not even confident to give my opinion on Doctorow here because I don't know who is using him where for what and what source of his they're using! Fifelfoo (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not complaining. If you are genuinely confused then I did not explain well. Trying again below.

restating the questions as requested

The editorial that is questioned is Doctorow, Cory, Stop SOPA, Save the Internet, Boing Boing, Nov 11 2011. The link is here. The article is Stop_Online_Piracy_Act.

The article at one point cited this editorial in two places. Both were removed, one without explanation I believe, and the other with an edit summary about "misattribution."

The first footnote was purely for attribution, ie Cory Doctorow, a co-editor of Boing Boing, said this. It seems to me that this is surely RS for that at least? However, as overkill, I discussed the three prior mentions here of Boing Boing, which seem mixed.

I then say that I think that Doctorow qualifies as an expert on copyright, based on the qualifications I mention above, because the other footnote was for a statement of fact:

"The US Attorney-General could force US-based ad networks such as Google and payment processors such as Paypal or Visa to stop doing business with, and search engines to stop displaying results for, sites found to infringe on copyright."

The Boing Boing article says:

"If a copyrights holder disliked links you have on your site, they could simply file a complaint with a payment processor (Visa, PayPal), who would then have 5 days to respond to their request or risk legal ramifications. If bills like this are allowed to pass, we'll be spending another $47 million dollars every year to help corporations fill out and enforce Internet blacklists.

"Sites that would be legal under the DMCA and its safe harbor provisions would now risk losing everything for allowing user generated content."

Hopefully that makes it clearer what I am asking and why? If not, let me know and I will try again. Thanks, and sorry this took so long -- been a bit unwell. Elinruby (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • thanks. Doctorow is an expert on copyright politics and his opinion is notable. His use for the article text quoted is reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Mesopotamian scorpion mythology in Scorpio (astrology)

Are either of these RS for the connection between the myth of "scorpion men" in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the constellation and star sign Scorpio?

• Lewis Spence, Myths and Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, 1916, pp.182-183.
• Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia.

Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Spence is a famous fringe author, an early version of Velikovsky or von Daniken. He obviously cannot be considered a reliable source on a scholarly topic like mythology.

The White book is self-published by a fake publishing house. No evidence that the author has any qualifications to write on the topic. Obviously not a reliable source for anything. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, DV and glad I asked, because I was thinking Spence looked scholarly for his period. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Spence reference could be used to support the references already given, but since that point is already adequately supported, it seems unnecessary to add another. Gavin White's book is not an academic publication, but it is well known, and White's opinions, as expressed in his work, can be seen to be reported by other authors (check this on Google books and Google scholar, in addition to a a wide exposure of his ideas via web-references). His opinion is worthy of reference where he neatly summarises non-controversial points that have been made by many others. This is not a problem where the text is clear in attributing the views to him personally - as is the case here, where it reads: "Gavin White, author of Babylonian Star Lore, writes ..." -- Zac Δ ^talk! 19:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong, it is a problem - As a SPS, we need further evidence that he can be considered an expert. What reliable mainstream sources indicate that he is an expert in this area? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

And there's also the problem that, as an SPS, he can only speak for himself, and can't be used as an representative example of the "astrological community" at large, or even a part of it. Pretty much makes it useless as a source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Cameron (and others), if the point were reliant on White’s text then I agree more support of his position would be necessary. But the point is widely reported and already referenced to a number of other texts that make the same point. At the end of the day the Gavin White reference is not a big deal - it can easily be replaced, but the bigger problem is that nothing is deemed acceptable to Itsmejudith or Dominus Vobisdu. Be aware of the situation on the discussion page of the article. Dominus Vobisdu and Itsmejudith habitually support each others' arguments but are directly involved in content disputes in this and other astrology-related articles. Dominus Vobisdu recently self-imposed a topic ban on himself when his edit warring on the Scorpio page and his blatant hostily to the subject and all of its sources was called into question. You can see from the diffs in my latest post why Itsmejudith has a motive of prohibiting referenced information, whilst happily proposing the inclusion of her own unreliable and unreferenced content. After a 'dubious' tag was placed next to one of her unreferenced remarks, she stated that her future contributions "will only revert and remove, not try and be positive and find encyclopedic sources or add anything".

This reliable sources noticeboard is a place that should bring balance and helpful resolutions to situations that have become impossible because they are too heavily affected by bias and anti-fringe agenda. I would ask for a fair consideration of the content below, which she has just blanked with the edit summary suggestion that it has no reliable sources and a talk page condemnation that my addition of a reference to Mindsteps to the Cosmos by Gerald Hawkins is "wasting everyone's time". Gerald Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University and a highly reputable author; famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy. Here is a Google scholar search on his title. But we are not exploding the borders of science here - just attempting to include some basic information on what is reported of the zodiac signs' mythological associations. Unfortunately all sections of the article get subjected to this treatment on a regular basis, and not so long ago a mainly unreferenced report of the myth was about all Itsmejudith considered to be acceptable information on the page (see here).

I and other editors are willing to improve the content and add whatever further references are deemed necessary. But we need the impartial assistance of this board's experienced contributors because all definitions of what constitutes a reliable source for this subject have been squashed. There appears to be lots of double standards exhibited by the other two contributors to this thread so more independent eyes are necessary. The argument - explicitly stated by Dominus Vobisdu - is that there are no reliable sources for this subject. References to well known traditional astrology texts and the works of its most influential historical authorities are rejected with the suggestion that WP does not approve of references to primary sources; more recent older works are deemed out of date, recent works are either in-universe or "feature fringe", and any academic work that covers this subject cannot be treated seriously. So can those with good experience of dealing with sources for controversial topics please help to define some sensible guidelines, so that if the passage below is not seen as suitably referenced, editors who are trying to develop the content can have a better idea of what a suitable reference might be?

Ancient Babylonian boundary stones show the figure of the scorpion was used an emblem of autumn, symbolic of the decline of the Sun's power after the autumnal equinox, which was then located within its stars.(1) Scorpio's ancient zodiac myth is most clearly revealed in the Epic of Gilgamesh where the gate of the sun is guarded by a pair of scorpion-men.(2) Gavin White, author of Babylonian Star Lore, writes:

The gate marks the start of an underground tunnel that was travelled by the sun during the course of each night and was traversed by Gilgamesh on his way to the visit the immortals who lived beyond the confines of this world. In terms of the sun’s annual circuit of the stars this tunnel can naturally be thought of as symbolising the sun’s autumnal descent into the darkness of the underworld.(3)

Scorpion men are featured in several Akkadian myths, including the Enûma Elish. They are the mythological spawn of Tiamat, created to revenge the betrayal of her mate Apsu. They are described as guarding the gates of the sun-god Shamash at the mountains of Mashu, where they warn travellers of the danger that lies beyond their post. The Gilgamesh myth declares that their heads touch the sky, their "terror is awesome" and their "glance is death".(4)

1) William John Hinke, A new boundary stone of Nebuchadrezzar I. from Nippur, p.106. Vol. 4 of Researches and treatises, University of Pennsylvania Babylonian Expedition, 1907.

2) For the relevant passage in the Gilgamesh myth see Maureen Gallery Kovacs, The epic of Gilgamesh p.76 (Stanford University Press, 1989; ISBN 9780804717113). For reference to the zodiac analogy see Gerald S. Hawkins, Mindsteps to the cosmos p.42 (World Scientific, 2002; ISBN 9789812381231).

3) Gavin White, Babylonian Star Lore: An Illustrated Guide to the Star-lore and Constellations of Ancient Babylonia p.34. London: Solaria Publications, 2008. ISBN: 9780955903700.

4) A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, p.493. Oxford University Press, 2003.This meeting of Gilgamesh, on his way to Ūta-napišti, with the Scorpion-folk guarding the entrance to the tunnel is described in Iškār Gilgāmeš, tablet IX, lines 47-81.

If there is a question about whether the constellation of Scorpio was first identified in Greece or Mesopotamia, Hermann Hunger and David Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia (Leiden, Boston and Koln:Brill, 1999) list Mul GIR.TAB The Scorpion in MUL.APIN. This should pre-date any Greek mythological reference. However, as mentioned there are much earlier boundary stones showing the constellations including a Scorpion-Man and this should be cited by the best secondary reference available. There are plenty of people interested in astrology who might like the old idea that the Zodiac archetypes arouse from Greek mythology, but the evidence from the translations of clay tablets in the British Museum and elsewhere show that the earliest attested origins came from older civilizations in Mesopotamia.

It is understandable when editors such as DVobisdu and Itsmejudith, who have shown a strong dislike of a field like astrology,[37] that they should seek to marginalise it. Continually and unreasonably questioning sources will further that campaign and frustrate editors like Zac who is using expertise to try to improve WP articles such as this in a neutral and uncontroversial way. Requiring peer-reviewed or equivalent scholarly sources for a page like Scorpio (astrology) that addresses a popular, non-scientific element of a fringe subject is counter to WP:PARITY. Both these editors have argued to alter this section of WP rules/guidelines as it disqualifies their arguments. Robert Currey talk 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed out in the 'General astrology sources' thread that no one has given a good reason why the deleted comments were not adequately referenced since I presented them in context. If there are good reasons why that content is not appropriate can these be given; otherwise I'll assume that the refs are not a problem for this content and return it to the article, along with others from Brown's work which show that the sign is of Babylonian origin, not Greek, as some editors seem to want the article to imply. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

General astrology sourcing

Would like to get this cleared up, therefore looking for multiple responses, especially from uninvolved regulars. Can astrology-related articles, or any articles come to that, use Ptolemy, William Lilly or other pre 20th century authors as reliable sources without a good recent secondary source to guide the interpretation? (I am not talking about any direct quotations, which would of course have to come from the authors themselves. My reading is that such quotations could be useful additions if they were accompanying statements made in secondary sources.) Related debates are can be found on WP:FTN, WP:ANI, WikiProject Astrology, Astrology, Scorpio (astrology) and elsewhere, but I don't expect everyone to have to read through all of them. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think we would treat older sources such as these as primary sources. I think they would be reliable for their own views, but we'd want to avoid them as sources for assertions about astrology in general. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There is an extensive popular literature on astrology, with an internal system of judging quality and hierarchies. There is an extensive literature in History and Sociology of Science regarding astrology, which is peer reviewed and undergoes academic scrutiny. We should rely on the scholarly literature of astrology for weighing and direction of narrative; and supplement this with the most professional peak of field works from the popular/practicioner literature where they are making claims within their professional domain (the practice of astrology). Only when significant historical primary sources are directly cited, or quoted, by these literatures should we use them--and only then as primary sources for quotation. Articles on astrology should not be written from interpretations of pre 20th century sources, and we should rely on modern academic sources in guiding our interpretation of pre-20th century sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Certain authors are recognized astrological authorities, widely read and still appearing on recommended reading lists for students of astrology. The three particular authors that concern me most are Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo. All three of these writers have been recognized in serious histories of astrology, by Nicholas Campion and Benson Bobrick, as being important to the development of astrology. All of these authors have written treatises on the subject, that set forth basic facts about astrological belief and practice. All three's works are conveniently in the public domain in the USA. (Leo died in 1917.) I say this is encyclopedic public domain material that we should grab with both hands.

All of these authors wrote in English or have been reliably translated into English. The translations are also in the public domain. At least the parts of these authors that are the most "treatise like" are low hanging grapes. The real question to me is not whether these are "primary" or "secondary" sources. There is a fair amount of astrological commentary on all of them. They are recognized by astrologers as foundational texts in the practice of astrology. If you're going to carry on about how astrology is pseudoscience that isn't confirmed by scientific evidence, you can't complain about the fact that astrologers still consider renaissance, medieval, and ancient books as high authorities.

The most important question an article like Scorpio (astrology) should answer is, "What does astrology say about Scorpio?" For most readers, what they are going to want to find is a description of what standard sun sign astrology says about Scorpio. I don't put much stock in that kind of astrology myself, either, FWIW, but it is a question that has an answer. We won't be able to answer it if we can't consult astrological texts as sources. One frequent cavil that appears is that astrological texts are not valid sources because they are written from an "in universe" perspective, as if astrology were subject to the rules for writing about fiction. This attitude in particular is unconstructive, I think. It manifests positivist bias. I'd like to get some kind of consensus that this particular line of argument is out of line. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking about Ptolemy (I don't really know about the other two) he was a notable authority in his time and we surely could treat him as we would treat any primary source: reliable for his own views. Any commentary or evaluation should be based on proper secondary sources.

We should quote him from a reliable translation. The Loeb translation is available at Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius, here, and it's complete, "despite what you may have read on a widely followed cult site out there" (he means Wikipedia). We should use this translation, I'd say, and definitely avoid earlier ones. Andrew Dalby 10:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a reliable translation of an old sources should still be treated as a primary source. Since we have articles on these individuals, I assume there are reliable secondary sources discussions discussing their work. We should use those secondary sources instead, and use their work only for their opinions.

Smerdis of Tlön, I do not see anyone here making the blanket statement that astrological texts cannot be used here. I am aware that other discussions are taking place elsewhere, but I'm not following those at this time. The in-universe issue strikes me as important, and worthy of discussion, but not really a topic for this venue (if it is being discussed in another better venue, please give me a heads up). But it seems to me that like any area of interest, astrology would have people who are considered experts in the field, writing about it, and of more recent vintage than Ptolemy and Leo. Perhaps you could find some of those to bring here for discussion? This is a fringe topic, and we'd want to be careful, but it is undoubtably a topic worthy of inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön, go insult someone else by misreading what they wrote. Claudius Ptolemy, William Lilly, and Alan Leo are primary sources, and unreliable as the scholarship within astrology itself has moved on from here. In addition, there are serious modern readings of the classics of astrology by sensitive expert Historians of Science who don't treat pre-modern science as pseudo science. We don't write articles based on the content of hundred year old texts because such primary text interpretation is the job of expert astrologers and historians of science. We are encyclopaedists, not historians or science, and not expert pracitioner astrologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The "in universe" business is in fact a serious problem[38], as are baffling claims that astrology is somehow "racist".[39] Astrology is in any case, and despite the wishes of some, not really a "fringe theory" subject to WP:FRINGE. The point of WP:FRINGE is to avoid publishing original thought, and that minority points of view not be given undue weight. But astrology, in its several traditions, has an immense literature. Within the context of astrology, the real fringe position is that astrology is nonsense because it does not propose purely materialistic causes or explanations. This point of view seems to get more than it is due.

What sources would you find acceptable to get some information about astrological commonplaces ("Scorpios are dark and sexy. Virgos are fussy. Geminis talk too much....") into the articles? More recent astrologers who might fit the bill are Liz Greene, Linda Goodman, Derek and Julia Parker, all of whom have written widely distributed middlebrow texts that set forth this body of belief. I referenced Alan Leo specifically because it is my understanding that most historians of astrology consider this vein of astrological writing as ringing changes on themes that were introduced by Leo, whose text is available for adaptation because it's in the public domain. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (Gemini. Talks too much.)

. . . and within the community of flat-earthers, it is the spherical view that is the fringe. Rare is the member of a fringe community who thinks the community's views are inferior to the mainstream consensus. Most critics of astronomy object not only to its reliance on mysticism rather than having an actual mechanism, but also to the complete lack of evidence that any of these beliefs have the slightest basis in reality. What would be a reliable source to put "Scorpios are dark and sexy" in an article? I would suggest it would be a review of quantitative statistical analyses of skin tone by sign of birth (or are you using dark more loosely - a correlation of mood with sign, or bloody-mindedness with sign), as well as one correlating induced arousal by sign, showing that Scorpios have a statistically significant difference in these characteristics as compared to the other 11 (oh, and the studies would have to be blind - none of the individuals being evaluated should know that they are supposed to be more dark and sexy, or more fussy, or whatever). The sources you name may justify the conclusion that specific astrologers have claimed this to be the case, but not that it actually is. It is the in-universe problem in a nutshell. Agricolae (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of scientistic bias that has gotten in the way of building these articles. Nobody's talking about adding information about the character astrologers attribute to Scorpio to an article on human psychology, only to the article that talks about what astrologers say about Scorpio. Whether astrological beliefs about sun sign characters are true or false is irrelevant. It's a relatively consistent body of lore. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientistic bias? I want a claim that 'X share the characteristic Y' to be supported by evidence that Xs actually are more Y than anyone else, rather than it being the arbitrary pronouncement of some collection of self-declared pontificators, and this is bias? Whether such pronouncements are true is absolutely relevant, if it is presented as truth. If you say 'astrologers claim that X have characteristic Y', that can be perfectly accurate even if the Xs have no more Y than anyone else, because it is describing the belief of the community. If you simply say 'X have characteristic Y' it is a different story all together. That is a claim of fact, that group X is actually more Y than other groups. It doesn't matter on what page this misinformation appears, it is a statement of fact and not just of community belief. As such, it needs a reliable source that supports it as fact, not just a source saying that the community has decided that is what they will accept. It is not OK for the page on the Flat Earth Society to say that the earth is flat, just because it isn't the NASA page. Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(T)he arbitrary pronouncement of some collection of self-declared pontificators... Nope, no bias that I can see here. None whatsoever. You aren't biased, it's only retrograde Mercury acting up again.

But I'd look at it this way. Suppose we had enough material to create an article, "Cosmology (Flat Earth Society)". In such an article, identifying the particular point of view would be adequately done by beginning, "The cosmology of the Flat Earth Society holds that...." We could discuss the cosmology of the flat earth in ordinary prose, having identified the presentation as presenting that particular viewpoint. It wouldn't be necessary to make the point in that article that the earth really is round, either. This isn't a source issue, more of a stylistic issue, but why is an article on Scorpio in astrology any different? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked what type of source would be necessary to state that "Scorpios are darker and sexier'. I told you and you immediately called me scientistically biased, and basically said, 'evidence? we don't need no stinkin' evidence!' I am not going to get into a 'You're biased! No, you're biased!' argument with you. Next time don't ask the question if you are just going to dismiss as biased any answer that you disagree with - why bother with the whole pointless exercise in self-affirmation? (And contrary to your suggestion, any page on Flat Earth Cosmology that does not include the fact that it bears no resemblance to the established consensus is not appropriately telling the full story. It is necessary.) Agricolae (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked you what kind of sources would be adequate to verify some 'astrological commonplaces', part of the shared body of lore that constitutes mainstream Western astrology. Your response would be that you would exclude them until they had been tested as scientific hypotheses. That isn't even responsive to what the discussion is about. You know and I know that astrology is not science. There is a body of lore out there, true or not. It exists. It can be described. It has a quite large literature. This shouldn't be that difficult. It isn't, unless you discount the literature of astrology itself as a source. Can I get a witness here that this is not constructive? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I will certainly support your suggestion that this is not leading anywhere constructive, although not perhaps for the same reason. Agricolae (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest looking for a scholarly text, or a high order professional practicioner text, that specifically critiques newspaper astrology as a social phenomena; and drive the WEIGHTing of how much "fan cruft" to insert with newspaper astrology. This is a problem on religious articles, where the colour of the object used to perform ceremony X is not actually of enduring encyclopaedic value; compared to discussing ceremony X and its significance. We don't ramraid unreliable texts for this kind of stuff and incorporate it because it is public domain; because:

• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) write from within a view of science that is now discredited
• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) make science claims that are not currently supported by science, and are FRINGE
• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) write without the use of modern analytical tools in either the fields of science or astrology
• pre-modern scientists (astrologers) write from within a cultural practice as if their cultural practice is fundamentally and absolutely correct. Modern social science disdains this, and uses methods sympathetic to people's cultural practices and their meanings without making strong assertions about their practices actually reflecting reality (a science claim)

As you can see there are a variety of claims that cannot be sourced to ancient astrology texts: that their way of practicing science is discredited; that their conclusions are discredited; that their literary value is far far below modern history of science and professional practicioner texts; and, that their use to explain social systems is a bad claim given that there are now expert systems for describing social practices. Use modern texts to appreciate ancient texts: these texts are themselves objects of study. Use modern texts to weight ancient texts, and preference scholarly texts for large scope, truth claims, and weighting. Wikipedia is not written from within any belief system or practice, it is written using the highest quality reliable sources to grapple with all belief systems and practices to the extent that they are of encyclopaedic interest. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that contemporary astrological beliefs represent a "way of practicing science" strikes me as implausible in itself. The information I'd want to add to an article about an astrological sign from classical sources would be in the nature of, "Scorpio is a water sign, cold and moist; feminine, of northern ascension. Mars is the ruler of its triplicity, both day and night, and it is the night house of Mars. Venus is in detriment, and the Moon is in fall, in Scorpio. Sun sign astrologers say that people born with the sun in Scorpio are dark and sexy and have the following general personality traits....." Little of this involves making scientific claims, as I see it, and it would make little difference if it did: even if you accept that astrology is utterly falsified by science, astrologers continue to believe it, and there is a general consensus among astrologers as to what the sign means. I do think this is the sort of information that people looking for an article on Scorpio in astrology will in fact be looking for. Our articles so far do a very poor job of presenting it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We aren't discussing contemporary astrological sources; we're discussing a sequence of primary texts like Tetrabiblos. You don't support an article from classical sources ever. You support it from modern appreciations. Look at this method: 1) Read a major HPS text on Astrology, it says that the Tetrabiblos was fundamental to the practice of astrology for 1800 years, this allows you to WEIGHT references to the tetrabiblos appropriately. Secondly look at a scholarly annotated edition of the Tetrabiblos's introduction, or a modern professional astrological practicioner at the peak of their field publishing in the most eminent manner, their major work notes that the description of humidity in the Tetrabiblos is still the definition in use in current practice, finally, we quote and cite the Tetrabiblos to the extent that it is cited and quoted in the secondary source. So we'd cite humidity as: Humidity does X and Y in both historical and contemporary western astrology, following the essential classical text in the matter, "[Quotation from Tetrabiblos to the extent given in the highest quality secondary sources.]" (HPS Scholar on the Tetrabiblos, p. 15; Scholarly introduction to Tetrabiblos, p. xliv; Tetrabiblos (foo edition), p. 403). The chain of weight, importance and purity of the quotation is maintained. Reader interest is satisfied as well. In contrast, our current article on Tetrabiblos is crap, being written entirely out of the Tetrabiblos and thus original research. Also, by using high quality reliable sources, it is possible to insert an appropriate, "Scorpio in History" written out of the history of science literature, which treats astrology before the modern era in an appropriate way. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

skimming some of the articles, the biggest problem with a lot of the articles is that they are way too technical for a general reader's encyclopedia and seem to be written for people who are into this stuff. cutting out a lot of the cruft would make it easier to assess sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

@Smerdis/Ihcoyc. As a potential user of the articles, I am mainly interested in the European middle ages. When you say "the information I'd want to add to an article about an astrological sign from classical sources", what do you mean by "classical sources"? If it is Lilly, or Leo then no good for my purposes. If from the Tetrabiblos, then I would want the scholarly guidance to Tetrabiblos per Fifelfoo's post above. I do want to know if it is a water sign and all those other things, but only if they were believed in the middle ages. Differences between European, Islamic, Indian and Chinese beliefs might be relevant, so I would want to read about them too. I know also that people might want to read about their sun sign, but that isn't a main aim of the encyclopedia, per WP:NOT, not a directory. We don't have to include it but can link to websites that cover it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

When contemporary astrologers write that Mars rules the first decan of Aries, they may be copying Lilly, who wrote that Mars rules the first decan of Aries, who copied Alchabitius, who copied Julius Firmicus Maternus. We've already established that astrology isn't science. One advantage of not being science is that technical details like this don't expire. It isn't like someone is doing research that might show that Neptune really rules the first decan of Aries. This is why I see the classical texts as reliable sources for the substance of the tradition, and their public domain texts as worth appropriating. Much of what they repeat is simply copied by later authors. We might want the later authors to establish that the details are still considered important, but as to the substance of the tradition, I think we can take and adapt the public domain texts.

Contemporary Western sun sign astrology is a body of lore that is relatively consistent, coherent, and the subject of a large volume of commentary that's considered reliable to the extent that it conforms with the tradition. It's a folklore subject, in other words. "Scorpio is dark and sexy" is a true statement in the same way that "Wednesday's child is full of woe" is a true statement: true to the extent that it is made in conformity with the tradition. I do think we can have articles that discuss sun sign beliefs. I am gravely concerned that hostility to the tradition is making the articles unimprovable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but what when they don't copy the older source exactly? When they are selective? I am not "hostile to the tradition". At all. I just want to read real history of ideas. And what you call "classical texts" are sources more than a thousand years apart. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. They're a thousand years apart, but as to these technical details the newer one simply repeats the older. All within the Western tradition, which comes through Hellenistic and Islamic astrology, will agree that Scorpio is somewhat implausibly a water sign. They will agree that the ninth house has to do with both religion and travel. They will agree that 120° angles are good, but 90° is bad. The only parts that have been changed were to accommodate the more recently discovered planets; most 20th century astrologers will treat Scorpio as being co-ruled by Mars and Pluto; before the discovery of Pluto it was Mars alone. (And the contemporaries like Pluto too much to simply abandon the planet after it was relegated to the status of dwarf planet by astronomers.) The approach to interpreting a horoscope has in fact changed (and Leo lies at the root of much of that change) but almost all of this nuts and bolts stuff remains the same. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that this is why I think that discussing whether source texts like Lilly or Ptolemy are 'primary' or 'secondary' sources is a matter of mostly indifference. I think they are secondary sources, because they were written as treatises on the subject of astrology; their subject is the astrological tradition itself. They are witnesses to the tradition, not its source. None of them claimed to have discovered or invented it. My understanding is that most historians don't even think Ptolemy was a practicing astrologer, though Lilly was. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't find any of this remotely convincing. I don't think you have understood what Fifelfoo said above. "Treatise" is not some kind of magic charm that makes a text written hundreds or thousands of years ago immediately intelligible, or that obviates the need to refer to the volumes of explanatory scholarship. "Their subject is the astrological tradition itself", I don't know what that means and I can't see that you do either. Finally, by "primary" source, I refer to the usage in Wikipedia. The Bible. The Qur'an. Dao De Ching, Plato. We regard none of these as reliable secondary sources, but instead use recent scholarship to interpret those sources for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not write encyclopaedia articles by stitching together sections of primary sources. It is this simple. We rely upon modern, expert, appreciations of ancient texts. We rely upon histories of ideas, and histories of science. And if these moderns explicitly mention and approve of an ancient text that is pertinent, then we might quote it if it improves the article. It is this simple, and this has been repeatedly said. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Itsmejudith and Fifelfoo. Your argument that these old texts can be treated as secondary sources for WP purposes is absurd. They have to be interpreted by modern scholars. The history and philosophy of astrology are scholarly topics that have to be sourced with real scholarly sources, not in-universe garbage or, even worse, OR and SYNTH on the part of WP editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is, instead, that primary sources are "written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision." Historical documents "such as diaries" are primary sources; but all historical documents are not primary sources simply because they are historical. It is true that, given the nature of astrology, you could cite the same material to a recent author. As noted, they say the same things. (And all the arguments that make Ptolemy a primary source apply to them too.) If that's easier to deal with, and it sidesteps the issue, so be it. I would have thought we'd prefer public domain material when it is plentifully available; but apparently that's just me.

The larger concern, of course, is that astrology is more than just an episode in the history of science. It is a belief system that continues to have followers and practitioners, even if it stands in the way of the rational utopia of the science apologists. What I'm largely concerned with is what constitutes acceptable sourcing for the substance of astrological beliefs about, say, the character and meaning of Scorpio and people born under its influence. Our articles are in poor shape, but that's not for lack of available astrological literature that purports to analyze just this subject. Our articles are in poor shape because the astrological literature is simply discounted because it's astrology, and treated like fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you really have been given an answer. Are there no academics doing research about astrology, not as a science, but as a system of thought, or the history of astrology? The primary objections here are that the sources are old enough to warrant interpretation by experts. Academic sources are generally the best sources we can get. But any analytical work on the subject might be considered reliable enough if the author can be shown to be an expert in the field. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the field of history or philosophy, of course, and not in the field of astrology. And that expertise has to be recognized by the mainstream scholarly community, not only in-universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As with any other topic in WP, we report what high-quality reliable independent mainstream scholarly sources have to say. Unfortunately, unlike creationism or some other branches of woo-woo, the mainstream scholarly community finds the subject of modern astrology of little interest, and few works have been published on the topic. As for the history, there are some scholarly works available that have been written by real scholals and published by academic presses. In any case, the "astrological literature" is unreliable and just about useless, except for "entertainment purposes". Such works are generally written by self-described "experts" who have no qualifications to write about scholarly matters like history, philosphy or science, and their writings are published in low-grade popular presses, fake presses, vanity presses, or by sham pseudoacademic societies in sham "journals". As such, it's of little interest to anyone outside of the astrological community, and is therefore WP:CRUFT. There's no need to mention it at all in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not strictly limited to scholarly sources, although I can imagine that much of what's out there would not meet our criteria for reliable sources. I haven't looked at the other conversations surrounding this issue, I expect they must be doozies. But I would expect we could find some sources that are reliable enough to characterize the common interpretations of a given astrological sign. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Having edited mostly on creationism, I thought that there would be no problem finding reliable sources for astrological topics. But modern astrology is more or less ignored by the mainstream scholarly community, and few good sources exist. Furthermore, astrology has no clear center or clearly identifiable authorities. Almost nothing of what has been published can be considered representative of the field as a whole, or even a substantial part of it. There has been a three-month long battle over sourcing on astrology-related articles. For a recent discussion, see here: [[40]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious by now that the real problem is not lack of available sources that are considered reliable and mainstream within the subject of astrology by astrologers. That will never be good enough, will it? Instead, we're dealing with lawyering from the "sceptical" crowd, who simply wish that the subject itself would go away. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it perfectly obvious that such sources are not good enough. The opinions of astrologers on scholarly topics are of little interest or value to anyone outside of the astrological community, including here on WP. Being an astrologer does not confer any special insight into the scholarly aspects of astrology like history or philosophy. I'm afraid your in the wrong place. You might want to try starting up your own Astropedia, where you can make up whatever rules you want. But on WP, we have to conform to WP policies, especially WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think that a simpler supposition is that Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön is simply bad at academic research, for example "contemporary astrology" from Google Scholar's first three pages:
  • Volume 2 of the book reviewed here: DOI:10.1080/13507486.2011.591117 "Unlike other histories of astrology, Campion's does not end with the demise of astrology in the eighteenth century, but traces its continuing influence on nineteenth and twentieth-century intellectual currents such as theosophy, the New Age movement and psychology. He ends with an epilogue on the twenty-first century, putting the question of ‘whether astrology's current popularity in any way constitutes a second revival’" and then go use its footnotes
  • While Ulrich's shows Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture as non-peer reviewed; and the journal may have FRINGE connections which would need to be checked; they claim "The text, if submitted to a peer-reviewed section (e.g., Articles), has had the authors' names removed. If an author is cited, "Author" and year are used in the bibliography and footnotes, instead of author's name, paper title, etc. The author's name has also been removed from the document's Properties, which in Microsoft Word is found in the File menu." and have this special issue that covers some contemporary astrology from the religious studies angle.
  • Other RS/N editors may need to check the credentials of this book which appears to produce something approaching a HPS position (though it reads poorly to me). It is more sociological in character using the theory of enchantment/disenchantment.
  • Gustav-Adolf Schoener has published two texts in this peer reviewed journal
  • 10.2753/RSS1061-1428360575 ; and Fehérváry, Krisztina (2007) Hungarian Horoscopes as a Genre of Postsocialist Transformation. Social Identities 13(5)
  • And then there's this and the people associated with this; and possibly PhD students, and the academics involved, and their publications
  • And this from 1972: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2776304
  • And who they cite, and who cites them, and where they publish &tc &tc &tc.
• The sociology of astrological knowledge and practice is reasonably well developed for the sociology and religious study of a minor subculture. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently reading the Campion history, which was one of the things that piqued my interest in astrology and had me looking at our sorry pages on the subject. But it isn't a good source for what astrologers believe and say about the meanings of zodiac signs; it says very little about that particular facet of the field. What needs improvement most is not the sociology or history of astrological belief and practice, but the more basic level of the substance of astrological belief and practice. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly draw your attention to this which I noted above: a MA programme in cultural astrology in the UK university system. Nuujinn's citation below also looks excellent. Following Lewis' other publications would be worthy. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look at that; tomorrow I will see if it can be ordered up at the community college library. I do have at hand Nicholas Devore's Encyclopedia of Astrology, an older (1947) but apparently similar tertiary source, from a mainstream publisher (Philosophical Library). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please drop me a note on my talk page if there's a particular book you'd like some access to but cannot get through your library or via interlibrary loan, the library I have access to is quite good, and I'm willing to do some RA work for you if it will help. One of Fifelfoo's points is well taken in this context--Lewis looks like a reliable academic with expertise in the field, so secondary works he cites gain weight as reliable sources--for example, if he used a source for his encyclopedia, that source is more likely to be considered reliable by us than if the source were plucked from the air. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be a good place to start, the author's notable in our sense as a academic, also an astrologer. It's a tertiary work, but the would be appropriate for an overview of characteristics of signs, and he provides references for followup. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In classical studies, all surviving literary texts are considered primary sources, of greater or lesser value depending on their age, their reliability, their sourcing (if A is quoting B, and both survive, A doesn't really add to B's testimony). The reason for this is straightforward; all of them are foreign to us, and hardly any of them (and Ptolemy is not Thucydides) are doing what we consider history.

So here. None of this means we can't use them; but we are much better off seeing them through the eyes of academic writers on the history of astrology. Editors and commentators put hundreds of hours into understanding a text; it is folly to throw that away. This is doubly true for the Greekless editor reading an English translation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditional texts as sources for traditional principles

This thread opened with the question of whether the texts of traditional astrological authors (such as Ptolemy and William Lilly) can be used as verifiable sources in references intended to show that the astrological content given is not controversial but presents details of well known astrological principles. It should be brought to resolution on that point.

The reply above states "none of this means we can't use them", but I think the approval of these sources need to be made clearer - with a better understanding of why there is nothing unreliable about quoting these works directly, and why it is part of the norms of the referencing of astrological content generally.

The example here relates to the use of astrological texts that are so famous, influential and historically significant that they remain authoritative text-books. We are not talking about references to dusty manuscripts, but modern type translations of texts that are widely available, in hardback and paperback, and all manner of forms of modern reproduction, because they are considered essential astrological reference works and are used to establish and authorize traditional techniques.

William Lilly’s 17th-century Christian Astrology (for example)is the first major astrology text to be written in English rather than Latin. Check this Google books result to get some idea of how extensively this book is used and made available.

Lilly's text is the only authoritative source of reference for the principles of horary astrology – his book is so important for that subject that the use of horary astrology was effectively abandoned until his book was brought back into mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. Since then his work has become considered the most reliable and useful source of reference for astrological principles - many astrologers can name the page references for where certain points are made without needing to have the book in front of them.

I used this source to give references for the association between astrological signs and body parts. Lilly tells us (in English - on p.97 of his book) that the sign of Sagittarius is given astrological rulership over the thighs. It has been suggested that I cannot use this as a reference to verify existing astrological content (such as the statement that Sagittarius rules the thighs), to demonstrate that some WP editor hasn't just made that up. That I must find a modern scholarly source which interprets the meaning of Lilly's remark and confirms the intention of what he wrote. Yet here is is, right in front of me: “Sagittarius: It rules the thighs” (CA., p.97). It's a textbook that modern astrologers study and which most astrologers either have or know about. There is no question that these influential traditional astrology texts can be used for reference of traditional astrological principles.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 03:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your citation does seem problematic without modern context-setting. Here are some question to show the need for modern interpretation to establish modern astrological opinion.

• Does Lilly mean the thighs physically only (and by this, the "fat part of the leg")? Does he mean the thighs in a sexual euphemistic sense too? Does he really mean (or mean to include) "loins", as English translations of the bible sometimes seem to have thighs to mean?
• the sentence finishes "...and buttocks in the parts of man's body". It may sound silly, but is this both men and women? Are men's and women's buttocks ruled by the same forces in the same way? We can't simply presume that "man" means both men and women; there is a long history in texts of women simply being written out or overlooked, treated as aberrant.
• When Lilly goes on to talk about how Sagittarius "generally denoth blood heated, Fevers pestilential, fals from horses, or hurts from them or four-footed beasts" does that mean that modern astrologers consider Bubonic plague to be a matter of astrological influence rather than the germ theory? Should modern astrologers disparage the idea of germs causing pestilence? If the reply is "no, of course not", how are we to know which parts of the text are still accepted, and which are not, without reference to a modern text?
• Why are horses referred to as if they are not four-footed beasts? Do modern astrologers not consider horses to have four legs? (surely not) Does beast mean "wild animal" as it sometimes does, or do domesticated animals (beasts of burden) also come under this title? What about pet cats?
• Does "hurt" refer to emotional pain, or only physical pain? "hurt" used to refer to feelings rather than being hit is attested by 1779, but we don't know how far back that usage went before then.

People aren't being difficult - you're up against a regular problem we face with the assessment of documents from another era, and with documents that are used as authorities, rather than commentaries. With laws we can usually know if one law supersedes a previous one. With authoritative texts from another era, there is always going to be picking and choosing, reframing and reinterpretation. If this particular sentence is still considered authoritative in modern astrology, it should be no problem finding a modern source that says so.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

He means thighs, and if there were any justifiable reason to suggest there is controversy then (and only then) would there be a need to question this. But there is not - the association of Sagittarius and the thighs is consistent throughout traditional literature, as are all the sign/body part associations. The pages are not presenting intricacies of the subject: only the most well known and reliable associations. Your question of whether, by this "Does Lilly mean the thighs physically only (and by this, the "fat part of the leg")? Does he mean the thighs in a sexual euphemistic sense too?", etc.," could just as easily be asked if that reference were made instead to a modern text.

Your question:

• the sentence finishes "...and buttocks in the parts of man's body". It may sound silly, but is this both men and women? Are men's and women's buttocks ruled by the same forces in the same way?

Yes, and yes. How do we know this - because there are ample examples in the book to demonstrate if it were necessary. And because it's not controversial. No one is going to contest this because it is so easily proven to be an established part of the tradition. The same associations are given in the Hellenistic era, Arabic era, Medieval era and Renaissance era. The continuity of this association is only rendered worthless if the traditional texts which are considered to be key astrologcial textbooks are disqualified for references. That is not normal for this topic because astrology is not a modern invention and it has a long etablished history. New theories, obviously, can only be referenced to modern works but traditional principles are quite appropriately referenced to traditional works.

With regards to your other questions - all of the book is considered still relevant in astrological terms. And you are right, it is not difficult to find a modern reference instead, but the ppoint is that this text is authoritative and it is a better source. It is the astrological standard to show where modern ideas exist in traditional texts, so unless the material is deemed controversial in astrological terms there is no need for this time-wasting discussion to exist. We take it for granted that the whole of astrology is deemed controversial in other terms, so we have no need to discuss bubonic plague theory. Astrology is not on trial in this discussion - the purpose of this board is only to discuss how the content can be shown to be built on verifiable astrological principles, not whether those principles are themselves verifiable -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In case newcomers don’t ‘get it’ the sole purpose of this discussion, and the reason why it is being entertained with such prolonged agony, is clear enough in the collapsed box below. This presented a long list of reasons why there are supposed to be NO reliable sources for this topic. The implication is that all its practitioners must be presumed to be fools or frauds, and there is no continuity of astrological belief anyway.

This long list of unsupportable criticisms was allowed to be displayed for days, but became hidden within minutes of me placing my responses to show how unfounded those criticisms were. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For two days and one and a half hours. Normally RS/N regulars don't moderate or "close" threads because we don't have threads that go off-topic. Thank you for your council, in future I will more aggressively hide threads of discussions that go off topic here. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Zac, I'm sorry, but you've missed the point. For starters, you are sourcing modern interpretations of a 400 year-old text to the text itself, which makes no sense. You also contradict yourself by saying that the references to pestilence are not relevant, but that the whole of the book is relevant (I simply chose what was in the same paragraph - I'm sure there are lots of things here and there in the book that are not accepted by modern astrology, it being 400 years later and a different era). You claim it's obvious that the reference to thighs can both obviously be biblical (where in English versions it may mean "loins" and stand for male fertility) a biblically-influenced reading ("thigh" can mean loins can refer to male fertility) is obvious to me from in a text from that era, yet you say it obviously applies to both men and women (and he further blames Sagittarius in the same paragraph for "intemperateness in sport", which is obviously to me a male activity in that period...). Overall, you're busy doing your own research on this, rather than letting modern sources speak on the matter. We're a tertiary source, not a secondary one. It is not our job to fill in large gaps in the secondary literature. If the text is that important, there will be secondary literature explaining its meaning. Astrology may be controversial, but that doesn't mean that a wikipedia editor can be given free rein to write what they like on the topic. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is trying to deny the continuity of astrological beliefs. However, it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to present an antique source ahistorically as if the result of centuries of interpretation and adaptation accurately reflected the original author's intent. We must distinguish between an original old astrological text and what is known about it with some certainty, and later interpretations, in the same way that we are routinely making the same distinctions when writing about the Bible. Whether modern Christians and astrologers like it or not. Look at the lead of Book of Genesis for example. It describes what everyone including historians agrees that the book says. In the Composition section it describes the origins of the book and its original function, not what Jews and Christians have made of it over many generations. Under Themes it also says some things in Wikipedia's voice because everybody agrees about them, and for the others uses attribution to the appropriate modern authorities.

Proper scholarship has much stricter standards than pseudosciences, and Wikipedia tries to follow the standards of scholarship. This creates a bias against astrologers that has an undesirable impact on our treatment of astrology, but if astrologers are unable to adapt to our conditions, then there is nothing much we can do short of presenting astrological fiction as fact. Which is not an option. Hans Adler 10:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As I am not sure it was clear enough: Original texts from antiquity don't tell us much beyond what their specific literal text is. Everything else requires interpretation. We can distinguish three kinds of interpretation: (1) Interpretation which reads the text in its historical context and tries to find out what the author meant and how his contemporaries understood the text. (2) Interpretation which is based on a specific tradition or school of thought and puts the text into this context without regard to historicity. Even if such a tradition has a continuous history reaching back to the time of the texts' origin, this kind of interpretation will still tell us more about the tradition than about the text. (3) Free-style interpretation which is based on the modern author's fantasies.

What we need in astrology articles is (2). To some extent we also need (1), although sometimes it will be off-topic. What we definitely don't need is (3). It is impossible to distinguish between (2) and (3) without using modern sources. Hans Adler 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I created an edit break for convenience and to make sure that this stays on topic. Hopefully that will help us create a sensible consensus that is specific to this issue.

Sourcing to a 400 year old text only appears strange to those who don't understand that this is still widely used as an authoritative textbook, and that it is considered good practice, even in modern astrological study, to source comments to the traditional texts which possess this kind of authoritative reputation.

I am not the one missing the point. The point I have stressed is that where Lilly's work has been used it is for a point where no controversy exists. There is no other reputable astrological text, ancient or modern, which says that the area of the thighs is governed by a different sign and not Sagitarius. Ditto the other sign/ body attributions. This is what we would call mainstream astrological knowledge, and since it's not controversial, my argument is that there is no need for this rejection of reference, or to take a matter like this to this RS noticeboard. If someone wants to question that reference they should be able to produce some kind of argument that dispute exists around it.

If there are areas where contention hangs over what Lilly wrote, then yes, it is easy to reference that: according to so-and-so, Lilly's definition of this term means this, whilst according to so-and-so it has been interpreted it to mean this. But we are not talking about points that are not accepted by modern astrology, we are talking about traditional definitions, and the absurdity of not being able to reference non-controversial traditional points to the well known, authoritative traditional texts. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I have gone ahead and filed a request for clarification of the fringe material guidelines with respect to astrology at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. At some point, the committee and its clerks will decide to take it up or not. You are invited to comment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RS/N answers specific questions regarding specific texts for specific uses; this extended content does not relate to the function of RS/N as it attempts to grapple with general principles of notability without adequate context. Please restate concerns about specific texts and their uses in a new RS/N section at the bottom of the page, following the instructions given at the top of the page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't understand exactly what needs to be clarified here. Both WP:RS specifically state several times that sources that are not reliable and not independent cannot be used on WP at all, except perhaps to provide information about the author themself, and only the author, in the case of SPSs, and then only with caution. I guess the basic question being asked is whether sources written by astrolgers that have received no serious attention or mention in independent sources outside of the "astrological community" can be used as sources for factual content on WP. The sources that certain editors would like to use are neither reliable nor independent. They are not scholarly in any sense of the word. The various sources include: 1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable. 2) Astrological websites and blogs. 3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses. 4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not. 5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review. 6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation. There are numerous problems with these sources: 1) The field of astrology is not recognized as a genuine field of study in the real scholarly community except at a single university in Wales (The Sophia Centre), which offers online degrees in "cultural astronomy and astrology". 2) Unlike other fringe fields like creationism or Intelligent Design, modern astrology has receive very little attention from serious scholars or journalists, and there is therefore a suprising paucity of high-quality and mid-quality reliable independent sources that discuss the field. 3) The sources proposed and have received next to no attention in serious independent sources, making it impossible to determine whether the claims presented should be given any weight without resorting to original research. 4) The authors of these sources have likewise received little attention in serious independent sources, making claims of expertise or authority impossible to verify without resorting to original research. 5) Unlike other fringe fields, astrology has few if any experts or authorities, or centers of authority, that are recognized by outside of the astrological community. It is also impossible to determine whether such recognition exists within the astrological community itself without resorting to original research. 6) It is impossible to determine which beliefs are widespread among modern astrologers because no independent researchers have conducted serious research comprehensive enough to base an assessment upon without resorting to original research. 7) There is no evidence that any of these sources have been subjected to editorial review or peer review or any other manner of fact checking with regards to factual content, despite occasional dubious claims that they are. 8) Many of the authors of the sources and the organizitations that publish them misrepresent themselves as genuinine scholars and scholarly societies, and their books and journals as genuinine scholarly, academic or scientific publications. The mainstream scholarly, academic and scientific communities do not recognize these claims. 9) Many of the sources produced promote a particular type of astrology, and cannot be considered representative of the astrological community as a whole, or even a significant part of it. 10) Many of the proported experts in the in the field are actually entertainers who have no demonstrated expertise or qualifications to write seriously on the subject. This is especially true for newspaper and magazine astrologers. 11) Most, if not all, of the popular books in the field are published for entertainment purposes only, making it impossible to use them as sources for factual content here on WP. 12) Much of the content that these sources are used to support is properly the domain of genuine scholarly, academic or scientific disciplines such as history, philosophy, sociology, psychology or the natural sciences, but does not meet the scholarly requirements for those disciplines. 13) The content that these sources are used to support is presented in WP's voice without in-line attribution as if it were derived from genuine scholarly, academic or scientific sources. 14) Even if the content were attributed, it would still not be suitable for inclusion because there is no way to determine its noteworthiness or how much weight it should be given without resorting to original research. 15) Some of the sources are ancient or pre-modern primary sources, and have been used without any reliance on modern scholarship for interpretation. 16) On a more worrisome note, many of the proposed sources originate from or are endorsed by the most visible astrological society, the Astrological Association of Great Britain and the closely allied Sophia Centre. This group is very "elitist" and ardently assert that they don't endorse the most popular varieties of astrology. It is impossible to determine how widespread the variety they do endorse is without resorting to original research. Furthermore, their writing are more concerned about astrology as they think it should be rather than about astrology as it really is at the present time. The core of this group is small and incestuous, so it is impossible to consdider their views as widespread within the astrological community as a whole. In fact, they seem to be considered a fringe movement not only by the mainstream scholarly community, but by most of the astrological community as well. I see no reason to relax WP sourcing policy to allow sources like this. If the paucity of genuine reliable sources severly limits what we can report on the topic of astrology, we'll just have to settle for that. We don't ditch core WP policies like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR just to get a fuller treatment of the subject. What good is a fuller treatment to our readers if it's based on unreliable sources? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Since the request for clarification is urging that the discussion is held here, I am copying over my response to DV's points, in order to show how his evaluation of the sources and assesment of the situation is is not reliable. (I have cut/copied his list, so his suggestion of what is being proposed is emboldened - my responses are beneath): 1) Popular guides and coffee-table books written by astrologers for the astrological community. outside of which they are not considered either authoratative or reliable. Only to demonstrate what the writers of the popular coffee-table type publications have to say on the subject. No, these types of books are not written for the astrological community (taken to mean those who have good knowledge of the subject and practice it or are seriously involved in the study of it). They are written for the general public, are simplified accordingly, and demonstrate a type of astrological approach that the general public can readily relate to. So, for example, on Virgo (astrology), where the key characteristics of the sun-sign personality type is defined, reference is given to Martin Seymour-Smith, author of The New Astrologer (Sidgewick and Jackson: 1981); Linda Goodman, Linda Goodman’s Love Signs (Harper Paperbacks: 1991 - don't like her myself but she's very popular and her books have sold millions); Joanna Watters Astrology for Today (Carroll & Brown 2003), etc., to demonstrate what these popular-end writers say about the commonly reported personality traits of the Sun-signs. This is given in the style of Joanna Watters (2003) defined a keyphrase for this sign as "I serve", and summarises the Virgo reputation for over-analysing emotions by saying:"One of the Virgo lessons in life is to learn that to err is human, to forgive divine, especially when it comes to love".(ref) Martin Seymour-Smith (1981) suggested that appropriate keywords for this sign include: Discrimination, analysis, calculation, loyalty, tidiness, hypochondria, the cutting out of the useless and wasteful.(ref) These books are readily identified because they are popular, well-known, and published by reliable, established publishers. The page also features a reference to Sasha Fenton, who is very well known, although I have argued that reference should be replaced because it goes to the Readers Digest, which is not subject-specific. So to me that is too trivial to be of any real merit. My view on this: if the publisher is a credible one, and the astrologer well known or known to be well trained with an established reputation, these sources should be deemed reliable for what they are aiming to do. They are not authoritative, but neither is that information. This is concerned with content that might be found interesting and curious. Being told that my Chinese horoscope sign is The Tiger, with a certain degree of idle curiosity, or maybe because my school project requests it, I might want to look on the WP page for that sign and see what it is supposed to mean to be a Tiger in Chinese astrology. Disappointingly, the page doesn’t tell me anything at all about that – it used to do, but at some stage all the information regarding the traditionally reported characteristics was removed because it didn’t have any references. 2) Astrological websites and blogs. I have not seen editors with knowledge of astrology arguing for the addition of references to a website or blog. I have only seen these types of references given by editors who are clearly hostile to the subject, and then because they lead to something that ridicules the subject. However, I have placed references to published papers and good quality articles that have been previously published in reliable sources and then reproduced on the web, giving details of both the original and online publication. Using that Virgo (astrology) example again. The page includes reference to an article written by a well known astrologer, Deborah Houlding, whose explorations of the zodiac signs are notable as a series of features originally published in the The Mountain Astrologer. This is a leading astrological journal with an excellent reputation and high-standards of editorial control. Hence the combination of good author, good content, and previous publication in a popular and well known subject-specific journal, combine to make this a reliable source for showing what astrologers have to say about their subject IMO. 3) Self-published books published by vanity presses or non-existant presses. The only recent example I can think of where a self-published text was proposed as a reference is detailed in the Scorpio mythology thread on the RS noticeboard. No one has presented an argument against the use of that reference within the context of its use (as explained in that thread), and I don’t believe there is a good argument that can be made against it in that context. But so often context is forgotten. Another example: I want to substantiate content on some pages by reference to John Frawley’s works. Everyone in the astrological community knows his reputation, and very few do not have at least one of his books on their shelves. But his books - though widely available - are self-published. Is he is to be excluded without any consideration of his prominence, notability or worth? I can see it's a problem that other editors don't know which sources are the reliable ones. This is because they don’t have the knowledge and experience of the subject that members of the Wiki:astrology project do have. It would save a lot to time is all such arguments were deferred to members of the astrology project to decide. Editors with good knowledge of the subject can recognize instantly if a text is generally considered reliable and representative within the astrological community. Recourse to the RS noticeboard could then be reserved for specific queries with the knowledge that the source is deemed to be a reliable one within the community, but for other reasons there are concerns attached to it. 4) Articles published in pseudoacademeic journals that claim to be "peer-reviewed" but are not. There are only two peer-reviewed astro-journals I am aware of: Correlation: Journal of Research into Astrology, published bi-annually by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, and Culture and Cosmos, Journal of the History of Astrology and Cultural Astronomy, which publishes proceedings of academic conferences, etc. Submissions for both are peer-reviewed by reputable academics with appropriate subject expertise; the former is sponsored by an astrological society while the latter is a university publication. I would say these journals gain no special weight other than to suggest that the publication involved has an established reputation for reliable knowledge of its subject and an editorial policy that is concerned with fact-checking. So long as the point being made is not one that breaks other policies (like using Correlation to counter claims made by mainstream science journals in a way that would create UNDUE weight - a point of controversy in the past) then I believe these journals are appropriate for reference. Dominus Vobidus wants them to be entirely excluded as prohibited sources, regardless of the context of their use. This is because their subject matter is astrology: a fringe subject (therefore these are 'fringe publications' which, in his eyes, must not be considered reliable sources, not even for reporting fringe). 5) Articles and books by the very few genuine academics in the field that are published WITHOUT peer review. To prohibit this would mean a book like A History of Western Astrology by Nicholas Campion, senior lecturer in the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Wales, Lampeter, cannot be used because it wasn’t issued by a university press. This will also rule out the prospect of adding a reference I proposed (in the RS thread given above) Gerald Hawkins' Mindsteps to the Cosmos where the relationship between mythology and zodiac symbolism is described. I argued that Hawkins was professor and chair of the astronomy department at Boston University, a reputable author and famous for his work in the field of archaeoastronomy, so surely acceptable to verify a bit of sun-sign mythology that is so well known it is reported all over the web and in many other books similar to (and so just as useless as) this. 6) Ancient and pre-modern primary texts without reliance on modern scholarly sources for interpretation. The example here relates to the use of astrological texts that are so famous, influential and historically significant that they remain authoritative text-books. We are not talking about references to dusty manuscripts, but modern type translations of texts that are widely available, in hardback and paperback, and all manner of forms of modern reproduction, because they are considered essential astrological reference works and are used to establish and authorize traditional techniques. An example is Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos. Another recently brought up for debate, is William Lilly’s 17th-century Christian Astrology, the first major astrology text to be written in English rather than Latin. Check this Google books result to get some idea of how extensively this book is used and made available. Lilly's text is the only authoritative source of reference for the principles of horary astrology – his book is so important for that subject that the use of horary astrology was effectively abandoned until his book was brought back into mainstream circulation about 30 years ago. Since then his work has become considered the most reliable and useful source of reference for astrological principles - many astrologers can name the page references for where certain points are made without needing to have the book in front of them. I used this source to give references for the association between astrological signs and body parts. Lilly tells us (in English - on p.97 of his book) that the sign of Sagittarius is given astrological rulership over the thighs. I am told that I cannot use this as a reference to verify existing astrological content (such as the statement that Sagittarius rules the thighs), to demonstrate that this is a reliable statement concerning astrological belief, and that some WP editor hasn't just made that up. I am told I must find a modern scholarly source which interprets the meaning of Lilly's remark and confirms the intention of what he wrote. Yet here is is, right in fornt of me: “Sagittarius: It rules the thighs” (CA., p.97). It's a textbook that modern astrologers study and which most astrologers either have or know about. There should be no question that these influential traditional astrology texts can be used for refrence of traditional astrological principles.-- Zac Δ talk! 03:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Response to DV's 16-point list of supposed problems with these sources: The 16 point list is tiresome for being almost completely misrepresentative. I am not going to waste time on most of it, except to say that your summaries are unreliable. Eg, for 8, can you specify an author who purports to be a “genuine scholar” in contradiction to what is recognized by the scholarly academic society? I am not talking about scholars who publish in journals that make no/little impact on the mainstream scientific community, but your implication that astrological authors pretend to untrue academic qualifications. Your 16th point “On a more worrisome note”, makes allegations against two societies with good standing, and what you say is false. This is a toning down of slanderous remarks you made on 18th Nov. against named persons in the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=461342177]. That is why I called for that thread to be closed, and have refused to contribute further while it is used to publish such false accusational remarks. There you also said this: "the chairman of the largest astrological club in the UK, the Astrological Association, posted on the talk page a couple of months back that here organization wanted nothing to do with sun sign astrology, the most common form, and that the wikipedia article be rewritten to reflect "real" astrology, namely her own brand." This is not true. What she said was this, and this: "Perhaps it would be best stated that 'the practice of sun sign astrology is a very small part and recent phenomenon of the history and full body of knowledge on western astrology' and have a link through to the sun sign astrology page? Thank you for guiding me to the COI page. As you have read, I am the Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain but the views expressed here are my own and not representative of the organisation’s members." You could have pointed to those diffs yourself. This is indicative of the extent to which you regularly present twisted, inaccurate information in alarmist terms. Being aware that you have quoted a contributing editor, you should also have given that editor some notice to create a chance for clarification. I turned a blind eye to the Fringe notice board misrepresentation but since you insist on repeating these allegations, as if there is substance behind them, they deserve to be taken seriously. Please qualify or retract your untrue remarks here and in the post that still shows in the Fringe notice-board thread.-- Zac Δ talk! 03:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC) I should point out that my criticism of DV's comments was not related to the misquoting of the Chair of the astrological association, but worse remarks which were made about named persons. For the sake of transparency and to avoid speculation - I am not a member of any of the associations that have been referred to. -- Zac Δ talk! 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ely Inns and erm Ely Inns

Are either or both of these two books classed as reliable sources for the statement "The Lamb Inn was mentioned in Bishop John Fordham's 1416–17 survey of Ely. A coaching house, built on the same site in 1828–29, still exists today"?

• Holmes, Reg; Blakeman, Pamela (1984). Ely Inns. Ely: Local History Publications Board. pp. 30–31. Retrieved 26 November 2011.
• Ashton, Patrick; Blakeman, Pamela; Holmes, Reg (2007). Ely Inns : a history of Ely inns and beer houses. Ely: The Ely Society. pp. 54–56. ISBN 9780903616232. Retrieved 26 November 2011.

Contemporary non RS sources, such as this one, seem to repeat Holmes' view that the Lamb existed in 1416. I am enquiring because I asked a local historian to examine this statement. The historian could not confirm an inn existing at the location in 1416/7 citing the source Holton-Krayenbuhl, Anne, ed. (2011), The topography of medieval Ely, vol. Vol. 20, Cambridge: Cambridgeshire Records Society, ISBN 9780904323221 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help) (which I have not yet seen a copy). The closest I can get to Fordham's survey (although I have ordered a copy of Holton-Krayenbuhl) is in Stewart, D J (1868), On the architectural history of Ely Cathedral, London: John van Voorst which does not confirm an inn being on that corner in 1416.

For completeness, all sources agree that Fordham's 1416/7 survey records Juliane Barbour's tenement at the present location of the Lamb Inn but the tenement is not named. There are named locations in that survey such as Kyngestede, Spillecance and Aleynsyncook that my historian says Holton-Krayenbuhl suggests are inns. I know from other sources that inns existed in Ely as early as 1250.

--Senra (Talk) 22:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ely Society's publications are rs for local history. But in this case you state that they have incorrectly reported the contents of a primary source. If the primary source does not mention the inn, then we should not include the claim that it does. TFD (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel reluctant to be hard and fast about this. We as encyclopaedists must judge (encyclopaedically):

1. Whether the Ely Society and its Authors are sufficiently good history publishers or historians to be able to make this claim over a primary source (if it is all they cite, then I'd suggest it was an error on their part, and evidence of sufficiently poor historical conduct to ignore them on this point)
2. Whether the primary source "trumps" these secondary sources. I would suggest that the absence of a named location in the primary source strongly indicates to me as a historian (but not as an encyclopaedist), that it was not functioning as an official inn at the time of the primary source.
3. Whether is is relevant information to include at all, particularly if you have some doubts about your secondary sources on this point. Just because something is verifiable doesn't meant that it ought to be included. And there appears to be doubt about the verifiability of the 1416/7 claim, especially given that someone cites Holton-Krayenbuhl against the point. Obviously we all eagerly await Holton-Krayenbuhl being consulted by a WP editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo that this is the type of case where our community gives some scope for a "judgement call". Dare I say that the need for such judgement calls concerning doubts about whether to include a source are one of the reasons for intricate un-ending debates about the exact wording of the first sentence of WP:V. But despite the debates about wording it is clear from those debates themselves that there is broad consensus on what the wording is supposed to mean. The principle is that we do not have to include mention of all reliable sources, and deciding whether to include mention of a source is one of the most important areas of editorial judgement for Wikipedians. Here is then the key question: by removing mention of these sources, might you be coming into conflict with WP:NEUTRAL? For example is this belief a notable belief amongst all people who study Ely local history? If so, then maybe a good compromise is to cite both the secondary and primary sources, attribute them both, add no commentary about the differences but just remark them and let readers decide what it means. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting responses. Thank you all.

• @The Four Deuces: I was not aware that local history societies (can I generalise away from just Ely?) were RS. Thank you for that point.
• @Fifelfoo: Relevance is a good point too. See below
• @ Andrew Lancaster: I like the compromise on a number of levels. Considering we have four options

1. Exclude mention
2. Mention claim sourced to local history that Lamb Inn was extant in 1416
3. Mention claim sourced to (e.g. Holton-Krayenbuhl but as you know I have not checked this myself yet) that Lamb Inn was not extant in 1416. Actually, would probably phrase this positively—something like Lamb Inn was known in 1650
4. Mention both claims sourced as appropriate

• The Lamb Inn, as the Lamb Hotel, is still a prominent building in Ely. If we use #1, some local will only try and re-insert #2 into the article anyway (attributed or otherwise and more likely unattributed or poorly attributed). Using #2 is, given my knowledge now, just wrong. Using #3 gives scope for further arguments down the line when locals find Holmes and try inserting the 1416 claim. By using #4 we acknowledge their own "Googling" yet place the doubt against an authoritative source. On balance, I prefer #4 as locals "Google" as well as I do and can see the existing non-RS claims, though probably based on Holmes, that the Lamb Inn was extant in 1416.

--Senra (Talk) 12:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I think your choices are between 1 and 4. One thing that might guide you would be to look at Holmes and Blakeman and Blakeman and Holmes, and see if there is any indication that they accessed and read Fordham's survey. Is it in a bibliography? Do they thank county archivists? Do they say that they did archival research? Or are all their sources secondary ones? If it looks like they did read the survey, then maybe they misread it or misinterpreted it in some way, and I would tend to solution 4. If it looks like they didn't read it, then their historical research wasn't thorough enough to be referred to here, even as contested, so solution 1 applies. Local people then re-adding it is a bridge to be crossed when arrived at. You can put a hidden note in saying "Please do not add... because...." Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The two local history society books are rs --Senra (Talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm not sure I want to dis either Holmes & Blakeman (1984) or Ashton, Blakeman & Holmes (2007)—I initially drew the same conclusion. Stewart (1868) is an English translation from the Latin of the original 1416/7 survey. Op. cit. p. 196 only mentions the Lamb twice in the whole book; both when describing the tenements surrounding the cathedral and monastery, including those on Stepil Row (High Street in 1868 and now). On first reading, it appears he is describing the Lamb Inn. For example "The tenement stood opposite the stables of the Lamb Hotel, but did not go all the way to S. Mary's Street, ...". It is clear on reading more carefully that Stewart uses the 1868 Lamb Hotel building as a landmark for his reader. He uses the words stables and Hotel which agree with the 1828/9 rebuilding of the Inn as a coaching house with stabling for 30 horses. I await Holton-Krayenbuhl (2011) with anticipation --Senra (Talk) 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lamb Hotel is now in the article. Based on my (email) conversations with a local historian, I have taken the liberty of attributing Holton-Krayenbuhl (2011) to the claim that the Lamb Inn did not exist 1416/7 even though I have not yet seen a copy. You can take my word that (a) I have ordered a copy and (b) I will check the claim myself Yours with integrity, --Senra (Talk) 12:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like good work to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point -- apparently minor (if Senra will forgive me) but instructive. I'd agree that local history society publications can usually be treated as RS in their own field, but all historians can make false assumptions sometimes. In this case, I think, we can see what went wrong -- the enthusiasts for Ely inns, knowing that a building existed in 1416, quietly assumed that the building was already an inn.

If you notice such errors when you're writing history for publication, and you don't think they are worth serious consideration, often you don't mention them at all. But it's different on a wiki, and that's what makes the choice between options 1 and 4 difficult. If we just delete the unsupported claim, someone is sure to put it back again; therefore, because this is a wiki, it's useful in practice to mention the claim, even if, in printed publication, we wouldn't. I tried this argument on this board recently (about a different question, I forget which) and it was impatiently rejected, but I can see the same argument coming back again above and I still think we have to take it seriously. It's a disadvantage of the wiki environment that false claims will come back and back endlessly (but we have so many advantages to balance this disadvantage!)

If Holton-Krayenbuhl mentions the claim that the building was already an inn, and rejects it, that should solve our problem. What if Holton-Krayenbuhl simply doesn't mention the claim that the building was already an inn? Even then I would then relegate the claim from our text to our footnote: in the text, as it stands, it gives the impression that either view is equally tenable, which we don't think is the case. Andrew Dalby 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you were talking about HCF / Halt and Catch Fire I quietly removed the problem element on grounds of weight / notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't that ... It doesn't matter anyway! ... yes, notability is certainly a good reason for removing borderline speculation on minor issues. Andrew Dalby 11:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I find the whole of the above discussion very interesting. My main motivation for choosing #4 over #1 is IP and drive-by re-insertions down the line. There is a secondary minor reason: I have spent considerable time fact-checking this small part of the article and to select #1 now would put all that to waste. Despite that, if it came down to it, I would of course remove the 1416 claim but see my first point :) On notability there is no question in this case. The Lamb Hotel—the modern structure—is notable because it is a Grade II Listed Building --Senra (Talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I know Pamela Blakeman. I have not spoken to her recently on this topic --Senra (Talk) 13:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Holton-Krayenbuhl (2011) p. 141—a facsimile of the original roll on page 140 (left) and the translation on page 141 (right) recording a list of tenements "On the north side of the Steeple Row [now High Street] ward to the market place" thus the first entry would be where the Lamb Hotel is now. This entry records Juliane Barbour's tenement. The other twenty-two entries in this section record names of tenements inthe same way: [<surname or initial><christian name>'s tenement]. In contrast, on p. 139 under "On the south side of Walpole Lane to Barton gate" is recorded a tenement called Ketenesplace and p.^nbsp;115 a tenement of Thomas Hakwronge called Aleynsyncook—implying inns.

• Holton-Krayenbuhl, Anne, ed. (2011), "Chap. The 1417 survey BL Harleian 329,10–24v", The topography of medieval Ely, vol. Vol. 20, Cambridge: Cambridgeshire Records Society, pp. 83–148, ISBN 9780904323221, The names of all the tenants and residents, both of the fee of the lord bishop of Ely and of the fee of the lord prior, then present in the town of Ely, compiled there by the scrutiny of Richard Hildresham clerk, accountant of the prior, and of Thomas Hervy, bailiff of the said prior, in Ely aforesaid, in January in 4 Henry V [January 1417] p. 83 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Any of the tenements could of course have been inn's. However, as there appear to be tenements elsewhere named, it is, I suggest, reasonable to state that the Lamb Inn was not a named premises in 1417 --Senra (Talk) 13:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wired 1998

Is this wired 1998 article reliable for the figure of $2 million dollars spent on research of the CETI_Patterson_Power_Cell that is mentioned? Considering the wired article author met the owner etc in the way mentioned is it still an independent source? Much of the article is written about their face to face meetings and the tours he was given. [41]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We have to assume the reporter performed some fact checking, enough to classify the source as reliable. The issue will change if another reliable source quotes a different figure. In the interim, we can say that Wired reported the $2M figure, and we will always be correct. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Specifically I think "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." is violated as his narrating of his meetings does not appear to be a disinterested perspective. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think the author has a conflict of interest, please quote the statements that make you think this. But I agree with Binksternet: the $2 million figure can be cited as having been reported in Wired. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting the words "connecton" and "disinterested". There is no indication that the journalist in question has a conflict of interest, or that he did anything out of the ordinary to obtain the information that he reported on. Meeting with the subject of the article for an interview or tour is not a "significant connection" to the subject or the topic discussed. "Disinterested" does not mean "not interested". The source is fine for the statement it is used to support. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the CETI talk page, if we refused to use sources where the journalist actually investigated the topic about which they were writing then we would have a pretty shitty encyclopedia. Journalists are expected to do as much research as possible and if they can interview a subject and attend intimate meetings then they can write a much better article. N^oformation ^Talk 04:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Wired has a good reputation for journalism and AFAIK did in 1998 also. Elinruby (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect IRWolfie's honesty to raise the question here to get it clarified. What I do not understand is that anyone could doubt this Wired article is RS just because the journalist went out there and asked a couple of questions. I do not want to discredit IRWolfie, but I wonder if the mere fact that an article is about cold fusion can influence with rightly assessing it as RS. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tell me if I'm in the right place

There has been a kerfuffle at Yui (singer) over reliable sources concerning the individual's legal name. There are no reliable sources in the subject's native language (Japanese) that suggest that she has a publicly known surname or that we have the written Japanese form (kanji) of her legal name.

This has not stopped some editors from using English, French, and German language sources (including the AP and French Cosmo) as citations for this alleged surname, and this has not stopped them from assuming that a Japanese tabloid that published a primary school yearbook photo with this name written in Japanese is also a reliable source. As it is very clear that a Tabloid is not a reliable source, what do we do when the sources in the subject's language honor her request not to publish her full legal name, but foreign sources publish this full name that we cannot corroborate with any sources in the native language? The sources (used on the talk page to support the fact that the surname is a particular name) are as follows:

• Japanese singer Yui eyes bigger foreign fan base
• Japanese Singer Yui Stages First Foreign Show
• American MTV profile
• Fiche people : Yui Template:Fr icon
• Diese Leistungen verlangen Respekt Template:De icon

There is also an old official website of some band that has a young woman who has Yui's alleged full name (in the first section, the photo that is alleged to be Yui is the "Pic 6" link), and her name given in kanji is also nearby.

So what is done in this situation? Do we go with the English (and French and German) sources, or do we go with the subject's privacy that the Japanese press (barring a 4 year old tabloid article) respects? Or is this a matter for another board entirely?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The language question is a red herring - it as simple as this - do we have a reliable source for the surname? The policy says nothing about it having to be in a specific language - If so, then solves the verification problem. As for the "should we use it if they don't want us to use it?" - I'm not sure, however I think in the best, it's not a request we honour. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The real question is are the AP, Cosmo, and...whatever that German site is articles reliable sources considering they are in the minority of sources that discuss the subject? There are over 120 articles here that don't use her alleged surname. Her alleged surname is never included in her album notes (just go through song titles and check the bits that say 作詞 & 作曲). It is merely these two articles written by the Associated Press, that one article in French Cosmopolitan magazine, and that one German page where she is mentioned in passing that her full name has ever been printed in the Latin alphabet, and on that seven year old Japanese website where it is only assumed that 吉岡唯 refers to the singer now only known as YUI based on comparing photos.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

When reliable sources appear to contradict each other it may indicate that some of them are wrong. In this situation, as you describe it, the Japanese sources merely omit a piece of information. It's not our place to tell otherwise reliable sources that they're wrong. Id suggest consulting WP:INTEXT and WP:BLP for guidance beyond the scope of this noticeboard. By the way, "the Schwäbische Zeitung is an independent regional daily newspaper for Christian culture and politics".[42] Goodraise 23:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction or omission as much as the only sources that state this are the ones that are not in her native language. We have no way to confirm that her full legal name is "Yui Yoshioka" or if it is written in Japanese as 吉岡唯 because the Japanese press will not report it.

And now there is an issue with another article where an editor has found what is believed to be the full name of Misia in this one Business Week article. Again, the Japanese press does not use her full name (reported in this article as "Misaki Ito"), and this is what may be the only reliable source that reports it as such (our article used to have this full name, but because no Japanese sources report it, it was removed).—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, my knowledge of the Japanese language and its writing system is rudimentary at best, so take this comment with sufficient sodium chloride. As I understand it, a name (even a Japanese one) written in Latin characters can at least sometimes be rendered in kanji in different ways, while usually only one of those ways is correct. If that is so, then we need a source giving the name in kanji form for that kanji form to be included in the article. Whether that hypothetical source were otherwise written in Japanese or not would be irrelevant. Also, if a source leaves it unclear whether the person discussed in it and the person our article is about are the same person, that would disqualify the source. And considering the absence of the name in Japanese sources, it may not be unreasonable to demand a source dating back to a time before the person's alleged name was put into her article, because, if your description of the situation is accurate and I'm not mixing things up here, there's a fairly high risk that there's been circular sourcing involved. Goodraise 01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that certainly discounts using the kanji form of the name as there is no way of knowing if the alleged legal name used refers to the subject (even though it is probably fairly obvious, but still not reliably sourceable). But this still raises problems with the Latinate form of the name appearing in non-Japanese media when it is clear that the news article is about the subject of the article. This is most definitely about Yui (singer) and this is most definitely about Misia. But the problem still lies in the fact that we have no way of proving that those articles are correct (the Business Week one about Misia predates Wikipedia, while the AP submitted article was written within the year). I've raised the issue on WP:BLPN#Misia & Yui (singer) per your suggestion, as well, to see if there is a BLP issue at hand here, rather than just one of iffy sourcing.—Ryulong (竜龙) 01:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to prove that a source is correct. How would we do that for any source? You may doubt non-Japanese sources. Someone else may doubt all but non-Japanese sources. That's a requirement that cannot be met. If you want to have these names removed from the articles, you'll have to find a way to cast doubt on these sources. The absence of the names in Japanese sources is, in my opinion, not enough for that. At best it proves that the media in Japan have more restraint than elsewhere. Goodraise 02:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Would this suffice? Seeing as the subjects are Japanese, why would English (or French or German) language sources be used to cite their legal name?—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that English language sources are preferred to begin with, why wouldn't we use them? If they're reliable sources, they can be used. If a journalist writing in Japanese is capable of researching an individual's name, why wouldn't a journalist writing in another language be capable of the same thing? Goodraise 02:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Because there's absolutely no way to know that the information is accurate if the Japanese don't discuss the same things.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

For all I know, one of the authors might speak or even be Japanese. Or maybe one of the persons in question can speak English and told their name to one of the authors. Or maybe one of the authors heard the name from one of their Japanese colleagues. Or maybe one of them has seen a birth certificate. Or maybe one of them asked someone who wrote a check to one of those musicians. I'll stop here, but I can think of a hundred thousand ways a decent journalist could find out the legal name of a prominent person. That we have no way of checking the veracity of a particular claim is insufficient grounds to remove otherwise acceptable content from articles. I don't have a multi-million dollar telescope in my garden, that doesn't mean I get to remove half the sourced content from every astronomy related article on the 'pedia. Goodraise 03:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd call the French piece a blog. But AP is reliable unless proven otherwise as far as I know, and the German article seems solid at first glance anyway. MTV, well, we are in their area of expertise. As for the singer's wishes, perhaps Prince is a good precedent. We don't follow *his* Elinruby (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree that we can take the transliteration of her name as reliably sourced. There is reasonable evidence that her name is Yui Yoshioka and that the kanji rendering is 吉岡唯 (she was involved with the band on whose website her name is allegedly written). The judgement call on that evidence we can certainly leave up to reliable secondary sources (that's what they're there for). The Mainichi Shimbun English version also carried the AP report. There are also no sources contradicting the statement that her birth name was Yui Yoshioka. The frustrating thing is, that although the Japanese blogosphere and fan websites are happy to say she was born 吉岡唯, no reliable online Japanese news source seems to include it. It's meant to be some kind of open secret.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So we can say that her name is "Yui Yoshioka", but we have no real source to say that is written in Japanese as 吉岡唯 outside of the vague mention of a "Yui Yoshioka" on the band website?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

More or less. Surreal, isn't it? For the kanji, it's not so much a vague mention, as a primary source that does not state clearly that the 吉岡唯 in that photo is the woman with the current stage name of YUI. YUI was involved with that band, however. There is also a high school graduation photo with someone of the same name floating around the internet that certainly looks like her, although I can't find confirmation that it's the same school (or even the right prefecture). Personally, I'm pretty sure that 吉岡唯 is the correct rendering. I can fully understand, however, if someone feels we don't have enough to pass WP:V for the kanji.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing that says that the girl whose name is 吉岡唯 is the woman known as YUI. It is just a "Yui Yoshioka".—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a need for Japanese script on English Wiki in general. I'm just afraid that if we don't put in kanji, someone will add katakana. Kauffner (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Geez. Enough with the crap on Misia already. The Japanese pronunciation of "Misia" is not clear so per WP:MOS-JA the katakana form is used, because IPA is not used on Japanese topics. And Japanese script is indeed necessary on the English Wikipedia for Japanese article subjects, just like Chinese, Korean, Russian, Tibetan, etc. The sources that call YUI "Yui Yoshioka" I will acquiesce as being reliable. However, we have no reliable source to say that it is written in Japanese as "吉岡唯", just a mention of a musician with that name on some primary source who may or may not be YUI (because there is nothing that says that bianco nero and YUI were ever collaborating).—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So the bottom line is...you will give Yui a kana in the form ヨシオカ ・ユイ? Oh, my. I hope you are not doing this to spite me. Also, I assume that with Tibetan, Russian, and so forth, the articles are giving the name of the subject in the local script. Kauffner (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope Ryulong will pardon me for speaking on his behalf, but no, that's not what he's saying. Ordinarily, any article on a Japanese topic should include the name in Japanese, including people. This is an entirely uncontroversial point of view, as the transliteration won't tell us all we might like to know about the name (and in Japanese and other languages, transliterations are sometimes ambiguous or there is more than one system for transliteration). Unfortunately in this instance we don't have an RS letting us know what her legal name is, which would be the one on her koseki - it won't be just YUI, as I'm pretty sure that would not be legal. So I believe he's saying we can't include anything beyond the latin transliteration - which is the position most in accordance with WP:V. Including the phonetic katakana ヨシオカ ユイ or hiragana よしおかゆい would not be justified, as it would imply that these are common renderings when they're not. Putting something unsourceable to put off people putting in something else unsourceable doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Ryulong has added the information about the latin alphabet transliteration, although I think it's a little too apologetic, and it would be better to put it in the infobox with a footnote explaining that her real name does not appear in Japanese media. We have a similar situation with Becky. Talent agencies in Japan are revoltingly powerful; they appear to be able to keep people's real names out of the press even when their property is on our screens all the bloody time. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I did find a reliable source that has her name as "Becky Rabone" at one point (an old photobook of hers), and I also found a source for a UK airman by the name of "Simon Rabone" stationed in Kanagawa, but I doubt that we can use these as reliable sources. And that is indeed what I was trying to convey. Kauffner merely has an issue with the use of ミーシャ on Misia (and possibly ユイ on Yui (singer)) as a means to provide some sort of Japanese text that regards the phonetic form of their names which exists in some form in Japan.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

People speaking on his behalf, an uncontroversial point of view, AND a possessor of the position most accord with our guidelines. Golly, can he walk on water too? Here I was thinking that he was just a guy who comes to my talk periodically and curses me out. Kauffner (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not aware that the same Japanese name rendered in latin script may often be written in a variety of ways in kanji; Yui can be 由衣 (Yui Horie), 結衣 (Yuis Aragaki and Natsukawa), 唯 (Yui Okada and probably YUI), 裕唯 (Yui Sakai), 由井 (Shosetsu Yui - a surname), plain hiragana ゆい (Yui Sakakibara) or whatever combination from the official list of name kanji that produces (or rather, can be read as producing) the same two syllables. Ryulong didn't invent the principle that articles about Japanese subjects include the name in kanji, it's just obviously necessary. When we can reliably source the correct kanji. Which we can't here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard C. Hoagland

• Richard C. Hoagland
• After providing no sources for 3 edits,(all reverted as unsourced, plus 2 previous edits by an IP which is probably this editor before they created this account which is so far an SPA for this information), User:Doc Holliday360contribs with this edit [43] provided some kind of sourcing for this, but it is a Youtube video of the broadcast of the Coast to Coast show . Any thoughts on its status as a WP:RELIABLE source? Especially for the material pertaining to Dick Cheney. Another editor reverted with "Bell and/or Jones is not a credible source re Hoagland/Cheney" as an edit summary, and I am inclined to agree, but would like outside opinions. Heiro 04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you complained about the unsourced information, and kept erasing it, I spent over an hour finding the appropriate show, and adding all the appropriate tags to get all the links to go to the proper places. Now that the information is in there, you once again took it out, I did want you wanted and put in the sources, but now that is not enough for you for some reason. The coast to coast references to Elenin and YU55, & Hubble Space Telescope do not have a reference to the appropriate show where it was mentioned in audio form. I went and took the time to find the appropriate audio, and none of the others did that, however they are acceptable by you for some reason. If you listen to the audio stream on the youtube link, you will come across the information I mentioned. There are no sites that have word for word what was said during a five hour talk show. If there is a problem, you should look at the other links to coast to coast that do not have a reference to the audio in question. Also Richard mentions speaking with Cheney, however there is no audio of him talking to him, therefore I cannot put a direct link to their conversation that he mentioneed on the show. Also if you take out the reference to Cheney, there is no reason for this particular post to be in wikipedia, since the discussion with Cheney is the whole reason for the post. Also I have had this account for years, so you can check that out, Im sure its logged somewhere, I just didnt make it to edit the Hoagland information. DocHolliday 360 01:27, 1 December 2011 (EST)

First, if you add ~~~~ after your posts, it automatically signs it for you so you don't have to type out all of that. Second, until your two edits to this page, all of your other edits are to the Hoagland article, seven of them, starting just a few days ago, I assumed you were a new account because of this, sorry. Heiro 06:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(Point of information - Doc Holliday360 was created in 2009, though they only started editing recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Doc_Holliday360 Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted some recent edits in the article. The beauty of WP:BLP is that it protects the evil as well as the good. Wikipedia should not be used to list everything editors can find, and a good sign of synthesis is when an editor adds commentary like "X also refused to comment" and "did not follow up as to why his guest would not answer this question". If text can only be found by studying a five hour talk show, it is probably not suitable for use. Another issue is that it is unacceptable for an article to use Wikipedia's voice to make assertions about a Vice President ("he would get to the bottom of the alien situation"). If the material were somehow relevant, it would need to be clearly phrased as a claim by Hoagland that certain statements were made. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As I was immediately reverted, I have raised the issue at BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct me, someone, if I'm wrong :) A YouTube video of a broadcast may be reliable: I think the reason we don't use them is that they are (almost certainly) copyvio.

I'd say that inserting commentary about the failure to ask or answer questions (unless we can find some secondary source that discusses the interview at this level of detail) is inappropriate and, in any case, useless. Andrew Dalby 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's slightly nuanced than that. If we set aside the copyvio thing for a moment, a youtube video would almost certainly be a reliable source for what the people on that video are saying or doing. For example, a youtube video of an interview is probably accurate when it comes to the interviewee's beliefs or claims (though they might have been asked leading questions, or deceptively edited); it doesn't necessarily mean that the claims are true. This might seem like a petty distinction but on controversial issues there are lots of people who put videos on youtube pushing their particular side of a debate. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Demi Moore

Here's a good one. There's been an ongoing fight at Demi Moore regarding her birth name. Multiple reliable sources (three mainstream newspapers and People Magazine) state that her birth name was Demetria Guynes. Another editor says that Moore's Twitter feed is a reliable source and since it's (allegedly) her, and the feed says that "Demi is her full name" (not that it doesn't say her birth name wasn't Demetria), that this means her birth name was not Demetria and that the WP:RSes should be ignored. I've been threatened with being taken before the BLPN noticeboard. So, what say you? Is a Twitter feed considered a reliable source? Is it more reliable than the established mainstream press? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not "allegedly" her; it is a verified account. Nor was the BLPN board a threat. And she does say that she has never been named Demetria, you just choose not to read it. Nymf _hideliho! 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and neither of the news articles quotes Demi. Nymf _hideliho! 21:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Who gives a fuck? Reliable sources don't need to quote. They have fact checking guidelines. That's why they're considered reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We give a fuck. Demi Moore is a reliable source for her own name. The Twitter account is verified to be her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The twitter account may well be verified to be her, but then that would be considered a primary source, and not a reliable source. People lie about themselves quite often, especially famous people trying to project an image. I am not accusing her of anything, but just pointing out why a celeb twitter is not reliable in general. There are numerous numerous sources saying her full name is Demetria Gene Guynes. I would support something along the lines of "According to many sources her name is X, but Demi has denied this on her twitter". Gaijin42 (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The only more reliable source for someone's name than the person involved would be a birth certificate - any secondary source would have to be based on one or the other, or a less-reliable source. Are you really going to insist on seeing her birth certificate to settle this bit of nonsense? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

We have policies about primary sources and reliable sources exactly for this reason. It is not up to us to judge the accuracy of the information. However, the RS could be relying on several pieces of information - drivers licences, court records, school records, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at WP:BLPN - it is inappropriate to carry on two different conversations on the same subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

NRK ...Norwegian National Televised Broadcast

I'd like to learn whether the document made by Norwegian National Television [NRK] ([44], [45]) dedicated to scholars each having own page at Wikipedia (Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge, Jayant Narlikar,Hermann Bondi, Eric Lerner, John Dobson (amateur astronomer), M. Lopez-Corredoira scholars from Los Alamos National Laboratory such as Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D, including some Nobel Price winner(s) Karry Mullis, Irving Langmuir is regarded for reliable source or not. Norwegian National Televised Broadcast of Universe The Cosmology Quest. Episode 1: 15 March and 21 March; Episode 2: 22 March and 28 March 2004. Please advise.

Contested edit: [46] The part relevant for this inquiry: Last sentence in the given edit.

Discussion: [47] Thanks --Stephfo (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This user has been topic banned from editing in this subject area. Warning issued Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reaction: I have no intention to edit the given article, however since the given subject was used in enforcing a block on me, I'd like to learn 3rd party opinion prior to going for the arbitration. --Stephfo (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then speak to your mentor. If they think the question is relevant, they can post it for you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Atari HQ

The last discussion involved two people. [48] It mentioned that it gets brief mention here and there. Three people make a website. It wins awards for being a good website from various people, no real coverage though. They mention books such as this one [49] which just thanks them for providing them with press photos they didn't have. One website mentions them in a single sentence saying they have an interesting write up on something [50], another website mentions only they have an interview with someone who once worked at a game company [51], and the third notable website they link to doesn't mention them at all. Wired magazine mentions them on a page [52] saying only "Resurrection Hot Spots: Atari Gaming Headquarters www.atarihq.com Games and history galore, with many links to emulation sites and companies still making Atari 2600 cartridges". Does any of this prove they are a reliable site? They have no editorial oversight. If they claim their favorite system was better than a competing system out at the same time, when IGN and other references saying the opposite, would we trust them? Dream Focus 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I stayed out of the last discussion because of COI, and planed to do that with with this as well. However regarding editorial oversite, that is completely false. We have editorial oversite and a link to the editorial standards was already provided to the statement of this. My background as fact checker and a writer for Retro Gamer Magazine and previously as editor on GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming site for 6 years is also more than covered here and on that standards link. The piece in question is an opinion piece on an Atari related site (i.e. an editorial), which I freely admitted to the person who wanted to use it is a bit slanted because of that fact. That in no way reflects on the previously decided reliability of the site itself. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Having looked over the site and read many of Marty Goldberg's excellent articles and analyses in the past, I see no reason why this site should be considered unreliable. I do not like the trend in the video game project of giving blanket acceptance to every statement in every source deemed reliable, however. I think any historical or editorial article from Marty or other contributors to AtariHQ needs to be examined individually to make sure the facts check out because even the best of us make mistakes sometimes, but I see no reason why we should be inherently suspicious of material appearing on the page. After all, Marty Goldberg is not a "fanboy," but rather a professional historical researcher and writer in the video game industry with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Indrian (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"rigorous research"? Just list where the research came from, and problem solved. We could just cite the source directly and avoid any doubt. Just because someone worked for what is considered a reliable site for years, doesn't mean their own site isn't just a bias personal website. Places he worked for required proper fact checking, while his own personal site can just have him look at it, say it looks believable, and accept it, without bothering to find a reliable source for the information. Dream Focus 10:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• If I'm not mistaken, Goldberg is both the owner and editor of the site and it therefore falls under WP:SPS. That said Goldberg himself is probably reliable under SPS. I would be inclined to mark it as a situational source to be used with care, replaced where possible etc. and to only cite content written by Goldberg. This would be analogous to how we treat, say, Kurt Kalata's Harcore Gaming site. bridies (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'll add my two cents: I've been working alongside Marty for a number of years now on Wikipedia (have not worked with him at all professionally, though), and I have no reason to believe that he would ever abuse his position as an industry expert. I am more than willing to vouch for the neutrality and accuracy of at least a few of the articles I've read on his site, and I trust the editorial oversight there, in fact more than I trust it at IGN, which tends to produce many opinion pieces that sometimes show evidence of not being well-researched. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

In the biography of Natalie Wood, her Death, is described by interweaving two personal memoirs that include information not present in police reports nor verified by the police or any secondary reliable source.

Davern, the boat captain of the boat Wood was on before she died, wrote a personal version of her death which he then revised (and said he had lied in the first version). Parts of his book (that he has reissued this Thanksgiving) is used as a source for what Robert Wagner said and did. The source are recent news stories of interviews given by Davern and Wagner's 2008 memior. I question weather Davern's book and newspaper interview of him are reliable source for this information about Wagner. The account also involves Christopher Walken, her co-star in a movie. The story of her death is pieced together through the use of the personal memoirs of Wagnor and Davern thusly:

According to Wagner in his 2008 book, Pieces of My Heart, he had been jealous of Wood's friendship with Walken and there had been a fight between him, Walken, and Wood, during which Wagner smashed a wine bottle on a table. Also according to Wagner, it was at this time that Wood left for her stateroom and Walken retired to his, with Wagner behind Wood. According to Davern, the yacht's captain, it was at this time that he heard the couple fighting; he reports that he turned up his stereo to drown out the argument. Looking out the pilot house window, he saw both Wood and Wagner arguing at the aft deck of the yacht. Shortly after this, Davern claims, Wagner sought him out, saying he couldn't find Wood. Davern unsuccessfully searched the boat for her, also noticing that the yacht's dinghy was missing. According to Davern, Wagner seemed unconcerned about Wood's disappearance and poured drinks for both himself and Davern.

At this point, Wagner's story as told in his book differs from Davern's: he claims when he went to their stateroom to talk to Wood, she wasn't there. Wagner further states that while he and Davern searched the boat for his wife he also noticed the dinghy to be missing. Wagner further wrote that he had assumed Wood had used the dinghy to go to shore as a result of the argument. Davern claims that Wagner not only seemed unconcerned, but that he told Davern not to alert anyone about Wood's absence. According to Davern, Wagner said, "We're not going to look too hard, we’re not going to turn on the search light, we’re not going to notify anybody right at the moment."

Wagner's theory is that Wood tried either to leave the yacht or to secure a dinghy from banging against the hull when she accidentally slipped and fell overboard. When her body was found a mile from the dinghy on Sunday afternoon, she was wearing a down jacket, a nightgown, and socks. A woman on a nearby yacht reported she had heard a woman calling for help at around midnight. She further reported that the cries lasted for about 15 minutes and were answered by someone else who said, "Take it easy. We'll be over to get you." According to the witness, "It was laid back, there was no urgency or immediacy in their shouts."

References (please look at article since I can't seem to get them to show up here - they are mostly recent news items.)

References

My questions

Is Davern's account a reliable source for what Wagner said and did?

Is it original research or synthesis to present the accounts this way and lead the reader to a conclusion?

Does the account involve a reliance on very recent news (recentism)?

To me, the implication is that Wagner was in some way responsible for her death, although the police have said that Wagner is not a suspect and he has not been contacted by the police for an interview. Is this a neutral way of presenting the information?

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure overall. But the idea that the information comes only from memoirs does not seem to be correct. It has been widely reported in the news media, so I do not think there is a PRIMARY problem, provided the information is properly contextualised. Nor is there likely to be any OR problem, unless an editor wants to advance a new theory not outlined elsewhere.

Recentism may be more of an issue, but you will see from the guidance that it is far from clear what exactly should be done about that. --FormerIP (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Concern - All the recent news coverage stem from interviews with Davern, the boat captain, piggybacked on a police announcement they are reopening the case. The police deny that Wagner is a suspect and say they are not going to interview Wagner. Davern went on a media blitz to advertise the re-release of his book in which he changes his story from saying Wagner was not at fault to saying Wagner was at fault. Hence the interviews. There is no new information from any other source. If you look at the sources, you will see they only report what Davern says. Look at the Daily Mail referenced here. It is a well known tabloid. Do you think there may be BLP concerns regarding Wagner? Also, what about Wikipedia:Fringe theories (Davern's allegations) given WP:UNDUE? MathewTownsend (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The book is clearly a primary source account, and I would say given the contentious nature of the various accounts—in relation to an incident that could well be a crime—then using primary sources should be a strict no-no. Any details of the incident should strictly stick to secondary sources. If secondary sources aren't propagating this version of events then you really have to ask whether Wikipedia should be? Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Further comment: It seems that plenty of secondary sources are being used; CNN and Time are certianly both reliable sources, and although I disagree about the Daily Mail that is generally regarded as reliable too. This clearly isn't an RS issue, because you have secondary sources interpreting a primary source account; that is the purpose of secondary sources. There is a neutrality problem if only one person's account is being represented though; since that account is biased against Wagner then Wagner's account should be given equal consideration, and the official finds at the time should be represented too. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• The police ruled her death an accidental drowning at the time. They recently announced they are reopening the case based on "new information", but they have not elaborated on that statement and not revealed what the "new information" is, other than stating Wagner is not a suspect, that he has not been contacted and they don't intend to interview him. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think the sources are ok in this context; the secondary sources obviously use Davner's book, but all information has to come from a primary source at some point, and as a material witness to the events leading up to and at the time of her death then Davner's point of view is notable and should be given WP:Due weight, and Wagner's and Davner's opposing accounts are pretty well balanced. The fact that Davner implies Wagner was complicit in her death is beside the point, ultimately both points of view should be given equal footing. Whether or not Davner's account is libellous, and the secondary sources are libelling Wagner by repeating it, and Wikipedia is doing the same by including it is another matter, but it's not an RS problem. I would run it by the BLP guys at WP:BLPN and get their input. Betty Logan (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• ok, thanks Betty. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Request a second opinion - Could someone else take a look at this? Davner is accusing Robert Wagner of causing his wife's death. The homicide detectives investigating this case have stated that Robert Wagner is not a suspect. The "primary" source in this case is Davner's recent Good Morning America" appearance to promote his book. His book is not used as a reference. The sources used in the "Death" section quote Davern as saying that Wagner is responsible for Natalie Wood's death.

• "Asked on America’s Today breakfast TV show yesterday if he thought Wagner was responsible for Wood’s death, Davern replied: ‘Yes, I would say so. Yes.’"[53]
• "When pressed by Gregory, Davern said he believed Wagner had intentionally kept the investigation into her death low-profile. And when asked if he thought Wagner was "responsible" for Wood's death, Davern said, "yes, I would say so. Yes."[54]
• Also:New Natalie Wood Accusations Aimed at Robert Wagner

Per WP:BLP concerns, are these reliable sources to accuse a living person of a crime?

Many thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The above editor who opened this RfC seems to now be forum shopping and attempting to wikilawyer - not wanting to be accusatory and lack WP:AGF, but this is all starting to take on the appearance of agenda editing in my opinion. See other RfC started before this one closed at BLP noticeboard here. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In fairness, Betty Logan above advised Mathew to run it by BLPN to see if there was any issues.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Accusing an editor, who stated a few times that he has little experience in going to admin boards, by throwing that list of links is way overboard and insensitive to such editors. You should actually be complimenting him for making the effort for us. Warning him further because he notified an involved editor about an admin post, is also improper, as he was correct in doing so. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • According to Townsend on his own talk page today, he is new to editing but not new to "looking around", indicating he doesn't want any guidance or help with how things work here. Earlier today, he claimed ignorance in how to do things in Wikipedia. At this point - along with the personal attacks and lack of good faith he's now exhibiting after being advised to slow down and that there is no deadline in Wikipedia - I don't know what to believe when it comes to this editor. At this time, I'm sticking with believing he is forum shopping out of frustration for not getting the answers he is looking for. Editors are responsible for their own behavior here - if another editor told him to shop elsewhere, then the error in that advice needs to be pointed out to that editor as well (whom I am assuming is more experienced and should know better). Lhb1239 (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• [redacted] per advice from [55]

I withdraw my request for further comment here. The suggestion to take my concern to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard was a good one. Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Church newsletters

Are church newsletters considered appropriately reliable and/or third-party sources on the topic of their members? The reason I ask is that a number of Seventh Day Adventist newsletters (e.g. the Pacific Union Recorder and Review and Herald in Ariel A. Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), hosted on www.adventistarchives.org are being heavily cited in some Adventist-related articles. Is this appropriate? I can't help but feel that heavy use of such sources detracts from the neutrality of the articles. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say they are probably fine for basic and uncontested biographical data, but not much else. I have no problems with the first paragraph of the Career section, but the other two paragraphs are rather fluffy and overweighted because of the sources used, and they are flirting with the border of promotion. I'd much prefer to see them sourced with mainstream science reporting than a church newsletter that has no experience at all with science reporting and undoubtedly based its article solely on material supplied by Roth himself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Review and Herald with it's sister global publication Adventist_World, the Recorder, etc., are not newsletters, they are subscription magazines that deal with SDA church theology, people, institutions, events, etc. The R&H is more that 160 years old with a world wide subscription base (including the Advent World) greater than many major newspapers. The Recorder is over 110 years old and focuses on SDAs of the American Southwest (CA, NV, AZ, UT, HI). Not that I agree that these sources are questionable, but WP policy is that even self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. These sources are being used in reference to SDA persons, just what these magazines are intended for. Johnjonesjr (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(i) WP:ABOUTSELF clearly states that "the article is not based primarily on such sources.". (ii) WP:PSTS likewise states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources", rather than primary sources (which Adventist magazines would certainly be considered to be on Adventist topics -- being "close" to the events being reported). (iii) Such sourcing would also be giving undue WP:WEIGHT to Adventists' self-evaluation. Would we consider an article on a conservative topic cited almost solely to the Washington Times and the NRO to be NPOV? I strongly doubt it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Treat them just like any other self published source, with caution. Roger (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider that this pattern of usage demonstrates 'cautious' treatment? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I could use some clarification. The article in question is about Dr. Roth. If he were to publish a book by himself, or post some articles he wrote on-line, I understand that those things would be considered self-published. Am I correct that papers written by him that appear in journals, magazines, and newspapers would not be classified as self-published? If information about Dr. Roth appears in journals, magazines and newspapers would that information be be self-published? Since the article is about Dr. Roth and not about the organization or beliefs of the SDA church, then would anything appearing in a SDA publication about or by Dr. Roth (and not specifically about the SDA church) be self-published? And whom would or would not be doing the self-publishing. I could see that something about the SDA church being published in a SDA publication would be self-publishing by the SDA church. Johnjonesjr (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Given DonaldRichardSands' complete intransigence on Ariel A. Roth, I have decided to call an RfC on the topic. You may wish to comment at Talk:Ariel A. Roth#RfC: Adventist sources in the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• Hrafn, your comment above about the magazines being primary sources is wrong. WP:Secondary does not mean independent. They might be non-independent sources (if Roth has some sort of conflict of interest or sway over the magazine, or if he's writing about himself rather than his ideas), but that does not make them primary sources. You might want to read Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources.
• Aticles written by the subject but published by someone else are not self-published. They are not entirely independent sources, but they are not self-published. Simple example: if you write a story for your local newspaper, you are the author, and the publisher is the newspaper. For something to be self-published, the author and the publisher must be the same. So unless someone is prepared to make the case that Roth is the magazine's publisher (rather than Bill Knott, whose job title is "editor and publisher", or the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, which ultimately owns it), then such articles are not self-published.
  If you want a simple example of a self-published source, look at the faculty directory page for his employer. That's written and published by the university, and therefore self-published. It's also a broadly accepted class of sources for background information on a BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

CounterPunch reliability

Hi,

I need some help assessing the reliability of the CounterPunch newsletter as used in the "Loyalist remnants" section here: [56]. From browsing through the CounterPunch article I have to no reason to assume that it is unreliable. People like Noam Chomsky and Robert Fisk has praised and/or contributed to the newsletter in the past. Also, Le Monde diplomatique, an autonomous subsidiary of Le Monde (which is a world newspaper on par with New York Times), links to CounterPunch from their frontpage (towards the bottom). Verdict: Left-leaning? Perhaps. Niche? Perhaps. But unreliable? No. (See also: [57])--Anders Feder (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: reliability, Franklin Lamb appears to be a previously published expert on the middle east, so likely his opinion could be seen as having weight in itself, but it probably shouldn't be represented as unattributed fact on Wikipedia. Have you looked around to see if other sources cover the same material? It does raise some redflag/fringe/weight concerns that a movement that is described as quite significant and given that much weight within the article is only verified by one source that is admittedly out of the mainstream. If no other sources can be found, I think it would be appropriate to at least give clear inline attribution. Perhaps off topic, but I also have some WP:CRYSTAL concern with having representitives for a movement describe all the wonderful things they plan to do. Might be better to just describe what has actually happened so far. Siawase (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There are other no reliable sources covering this exact 'movement', but Lamb's article mentions Aisha Gaddafi as being part of it, and she recently did make counter-revolutionary statements on the air.[58] But you're right, the material is a bit WP:CRYSTALic in any case.--Anders Feder (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, Lamb's credentials: books on Lebanon and Palestine[59] "A researcher at the American University of Beirut"[60] bio[61]

With the combined strength of the two sources, I think something less specific about loyalists still being active might be appropriate to include, perhaps with more focus on Aisha Gaddafi and less on the "movement" per se. At least, I don't see any reliability issues as long as it's attributed correctly ("CounterPunch contributor Franklin Lamb said" or some such) but I can't speak to weight issues since I haven't looked too closely at the article. Siawase (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Counter-Punch is a solid left wing source. Print the fact, attribute the source, disclaim on bias in the footnote if necessary. This should be a universal at WP instead of the ludicrous pretense that some publications like the New York Times and Time are godshead and everything else shouldn't be used. Print objective truth, identify biases, represent all sides in a debate — it's not that difficult. Carrite (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the specific query, the sentence should begin "According to PERSON X in an article published in SOURCE Y, blah blah blah...." Identify where the info is coming from and let readers make their own determinations. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Heraldry—reliable sources for

I am very confused. I am trying to find reliably sources for the date granted, who or what granted to and the correct heraldic (is it?) charges for

• Isle of Ely: Gules three Ducal Coronets two and one Or. which I believe, from Civic Heraldry (assigned to Etheldreda? Granted 1290 to Bishop William de Luda), is the Bishopric of Ely which is different in VCH Cambridge and the Isle of Ely vol. IV p. 51 as Gules three crowns or. (Seal of Bishop William of Louth 1290–8), op. cit. p. 118 Argent three bars wavy azure and a pile gules charged with three crowns or. (granted 1931) and also in Heraldry of the World as Diocese of Ely and this image from the market place, Ely, confusingly Cambridgeshire And Isle Of Ely County Council (granted 1965) and finally this image from commons
• Three Keys: This image of three keys has me stumped. The picture was taken recently by me on the south side of Ely, Cambridgeshire market place against the Almonry wall. This particular shield is on the right hand side of the World War II memorial. The three crowns image was taken at the same time and is located on the left hand side of the same memorial. This shield is not in VCH and I do not know enough heraldry to form the words necessary to search heraldic sites for this shield. It may possible be St Peter as indicated by Heraldry of Medieval Flanders though that is just a guess on my part though two keys (charges?) are indicated for St Peter here. Wait: Just remembered. Ely Cathedral is The Cathedral Church of the Holy and Undivided Trinity so are the three keys the Holy and Undivided Trinity?

--Senra (Talk) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Website for St Wulstan's, Malvern here shows the coat of arms with the three keys vertically, ascribing them to Ely, presumably (as it says at the top) a Benedictine house with a cathedral prior.Ning-ning (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

www.metalmusicarchives.com

I'm wondering if http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/ is a reliable source? It looks like it might be user-editable (similar to Discogs or Metal Archives), which makes me think it isn't a RS. It is currently being used as a source at The Compendium Archive, using http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/agalloch--the-compendium-archive-1996-2006%28compilation%29.aspx. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not reliable: an open wiki. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Carol of the bells / Ukrainian Bell Carol

The article for Carol of the bells had an alternative title "Ukrainian Bell Carol" removed because according to those editors it's not known under this title. The sources I provided were deemed inelligible because they were not the original manuscript. I don't think the orginal manuscript is the correct source to prove that a musical piece is also known by another name. The other name might have been coined later and while I can't locate where it was first used, I think it's just sufficient to show that it continues to be used by various media and individuals performing, recording or distributing the musical piece. And it is used a lot. I provided many links to music notes that refer in the title to both "Carol of the bells" and "Ukrainian Bell carol", actual images of recordings with the name of "Ukrainian bell Carol and actual renditions of the song by varius artists, choirs, etc. on youtube under the title "Ukrainian Bell Carol. It's a question if the alternate title exists and is used, therefore why would links showing people actually using the alternate title be not sufficient? There are many, many instances when this carol is referred to under this alternate name and I think the article is incomplete and frankly confusing when it does not include it.

Here is just a sample of instances where the alternate name was used:

Music notes

• http://www.8notes.com/scores/9648.asp
• http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtdVPE.asp?ppn=MN0087460
• http://www.onlinesheetmusic.com/title-p375436.aspx
• http://musescore.org/en/node/3691
• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Carol-Educational-Octavo-Three-part/dp/B005OKGUB4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1322372544&sr=8-2

Books

• http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alfred-Publishing-00-3001UP1X-Ukrainian-Carol/dp/B001OTJXEU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1322952054&sr=8-3
• http://www.amazon.ca/Celtic-Christmas-Phillip-Keveren/dp/063401823X/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1322625864&sr=8-8#reader_063401823X

Recordings

• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Bell-Carol-Bells/dp/B006AT6M4S/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1322626243&sr=8-4
• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Bell-Carol/dp/B0013GJBH8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322372544&sr=8-1
• http://www.amazon.com/Ukrainian-Bell-Carol/dp/B004BGHPLQ/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1322951737&sr=1-8
• http://www.amazon.com/Carol-Bells-Ukrainian-Bell/dp/B0046KJY7U/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1322951737&sr=1-31

Performances

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1lUsYcoOQM&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5bDYoa6fv8&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWi4zbdpK1w
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5bDYoa6fv8&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOeFbVecwxw&feature=related
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s83mp6bxe4

Mykyta (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of this page. RS/N doesn't cover Title disputes; we deal with source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue about the reliability of sources. The original poster is suggesting that these sources are reliable and any one or all could be used to determine that the information is reliable. I'm not so sure. If not here, then where should this be discussed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm not familiar with Wikipedia protocol so I'm not sure where to take this discussion. I don't think it should go under title as I don't think the title should change at all. I only want to add alternate title in the body if article. Also not sure if this should go under reliability of sources - it's only a question of "is is used", therefore a mere existence of ANY sources, reliable or not answers the question affirmatively.Mykyta (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• None of the youtube links are reliable: they're self-published sources by non-experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• None of the recordings are adequate to support the work also being known by that title—I could publish a CD tomorrow that renames any piece as any other piece. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The pieces of sheet music "Books" don't discuss this, its the same problem as the recording issue. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The same problem with the scores, half of them are self-published like youtube; the other half do not actually discuss the topic.
• What you really want is a taxonomy of folk music. The standard isn't mention of the encyclopaedic topic, it is discussion. Sadly people don't discuss using music as a language. Given the work is repeatedly listed as a "folk melody"—it oughtn't be too hard to find such a taxonomy, or list in scholarly folk studies; or a book on (not a book of) Ukrainian folk music. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This was exactly the crux of the discussion I had the with editor on the article's talk page. Thank you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this discussion is not on the correct page, I don’t think it is a question of “are the sources reliable” it is a questions of “is the alternate title used”. It doesn’t matter if they’re experts or not – the point is that they’re using the alternate title and the issue is whether the song is also known by another name. The article is incomplete if it fails to show a different title regardless if the title is accepted by scholarly folk studies as correct - hardly the point. The point is - it is used. Mykyta (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The point isn't whether scholarly folk call it anything, it's whether you can find a reliable source that it is used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A scholarly article would be ideal, but a newspaper clipping, magazine article, or some neutral third-party who, when discussing your title relates back to the more common English title. I know that it is occasionally called "Ukrainian Bell Carol", as I too have some CDs that use the term, but you have to understand the purpose of the reference. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping refs

Article title:Re-Envisioning Our Environment

"...using a process known as tree shaping." "...allowing tree shapers to create anything..."

Written by Russ Baker, Published by Business Insider Oct. 6, 2011 Article about different forms of tree shaping and how we can change the world.

My questions are, given the article is using tree shaping as the term for the field of Tree shaping and it is using the wording tree shapers as a describing term for the practitioners would the above citation be:

1. a reliable source?
2. support the use of Tree shaping as a title?. ?oygul (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Russ Baker is not a fine art historian, fine art critic, or fine art taxonomist. Baker is not reliable to support the use of Tree shaping as a title.
• Russ Baker is an investigative journalist in an online newspaper with an editorial staff and policy, that subsists off commercial revenue. This article is reliable for the claim that, "Peter Cook's art practice is known as tree shaping" where the statement makes clear that this only extends to Peter Cook's own works and not to the works of other artists who manipulate trees &tc.
• The mention of Peter Cook's work is one paragraph in an article about multiple items—it isn't reliable for anything other than what Peter Cook's own artistic practice is called. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Russ Baker is clearly talking about more than one artist. He does only name one artist, but when he goes on to describe what tree shaping is, he uses tree shapers and gives examples from other artists from around the world. I have asked both Slowart (Arborsmith) and Blackash (Pooktre) if they could let us know who the other artists are. ?oygul (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the text of the article, "Although growing infrastructure elsewhere in the world may not seem very realistic, one possibility for many areas could be to grow our own furniture. In Australia, Peter Cook has been growing tables and chairs for 25 years in his back yard, using a process known as tree shaping. This technique involves directing arboreal growth into pre-determined designs, allowing tree shapers to create anything from ladders to entire building structures." "Although growing infrastructure elsewhere in the world may not seem very realistic, one possibility for many areas could be to grow our own furniture. In Australia, Peter Cook has been growing tables and chairs for 25 years in his back yard, using a process known as tree shaping. This technique involves directing arboreal growth into pre-determined designs, allowing tree shapers to create anything from ladders to entire building structures." Who is the other artist named in this article? I will give you a clue: no other artist is named. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, just to be clear I'm Becky Northey, I'm Peter Cook life partner and co-founder with him of Pooktre. Now that's out of the way, Please note three things about this article:

1. Russ uses an s with the term tree shaper which means more than one.

2. I know for a fact that Peter Cook and myself have never grown a ladder tree.

2.1. But Axel Erlandson is world famous for having done so. Pictures have appeared all over the web and in multiple published media.

2.2 No-one else to date has grown a tree into a ladder. I know for a fact that nowhere on our web site Pooktre do we claim to have grown a ladder, entire building structures or even part of building structures. Our site is one of the references given in the article.

3. I know for a fact the Peter Cook and myself have not grown entire building structures and the linked image in the article is not ours. All our images bar the few I given here are water marked with dates and Pooktre, a fact that I don't think Russ would have missed on our web site. I also follow this up on other web sites.

3.1 The image is of a willow planting in Germany called Auerworld Palace, grown by collaboration of 300 volunteers from all over Europe. There are quite a lot of copies of this image floating about and it is also on YouTube. Growing buildings out of trees is huge in Germany.

Basically Russ added an s to tree shaper and has given examples of other artists work. To me that would mean Russ is writing about the field in general. And is talking about more than just one artist's work even if the others' are not named. Blackash have a chat 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here to showcase artists' work. Look at sculpture. Not every sculptor, style or genre is mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I only bothered to comment on this as I was asked. Whether Russ is only writing about one artist or about the art form in general or a mix of both, isn't that relevant to ?oygul's question?

I wasn't thinking on using this reference as means to write about individual artists. I thought it would be ok as a reference for the living bridges at Tree shaping. Do you think this article would be reliable in that context? Blackash have a chat 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo please don't shout at me, I did state in my comment that Russ Baker only names one artist as part of my disagreement. Why did you copy and paste the same text twice? ?oygul (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the article contains the same text twice: that's all the text in the article on tree shaping. The fact that the article was so poorly edited that it itself contains duplicated text (you might have noticed?) indicates the poor quality of this source: it isn't sub-edited. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I just took it to be similar to how wiki has a lead summary, but he didn't bother to paraphrase. ?oygul (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for noting your possible COI Backlash, that is excellent editorial conduct. Thank you for your argued points. Russ's article is shorter than this discussion, and only mentions tree shaping in two paragraphs; he doesn't name other artists. Most importantly, as I mentioned first, Russ lacks the expertise to diagnose this, being a political journalist in a minor online newspaper. Significantly, as previously mentioned: "Russ Baker is not a fine art historian, fine art critic, or fine art taxonomist. Baker is not reliable to support the use of Tree shaping as a title." A different, more extensive article in the appropriately edited section of a newspaper, that is willing to go on record naming other artists practices as tree shaping could be reliable. Russ's piece isn't. I understand the frustration of the practicioners of a small and new form of fine art media looking for clarity and recognition. Perhaps you could suggest a major exhibition to a Museum of Contemporary Art, for example, that would clarify the issue. This kind of fine arts curator would be a reliable expert author; and their museum catalogue published by such a large credible official museum would be a reliable publication outlet. I'm sure that they would properly contextualise the variety of artists and styles of manipulating plants for artistic purposes and provide proper context and clarity to resolve the issue. But Russ's piece doesn't. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Other editors have said, tree shaping has no refs Talk:Tree shaping there are 42 more refs to check refs given for supporting the use of the descriptive phase, tree shaping.I decided to go through the refs from the most recent. this is only the 3rd to be checked. Of the other two one good one bad, My question isn't about the diagnoses of the meaning or use of the term tree shaping. It is about tree shaping being used as a descriptive phrase. I think Russ Baker changed from specifics to general when he gives a description of what tree shaping is and some examples.

Could we please have some more opinions on this question. Is the above ref an example of the term tree shaping being used to describe this practice.?oygul (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is http://audiopinions.net reliable?

http://audiopinions.net doesn't seem to have any paid staff and the reviews feel more like blogs, but some editors at Hats Off to the Bull are including it as a review. Should it stay or go? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a blog to me (it calls itself a magazine, but it's still powered by wordpress). No mentions in Google news archives, nor google books, suggests it is not even considered an important blog. We should only include opinions from notable reviewers (either long track record of publication or writing in an important outlet, such as a national newspaper). I wouldn't consider it appropriate at all for sourcing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The second concern for me was that it was meant to mimic the epinions.com's name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

How can sites such as Under The Gun, Bring On The Mixed Review, Sputnikmusic (a community review site which allows all users to post reviews), ect all be allowed to post links to reviews which everyone knows it's done by someone affiliated with their site but Audiopinions is considered not reliable and a conflict of interest?

It honestly seems like you're targeting me and me only when so many others do the same and their allowed to stay. Also a review is a review is a review, and the section is for reviews. The album releases tomorrow and no one else has posted their review on the page yet, but If I want the Audiopinions review up there where it hurts no one I have to fight over it. 4.252.15.102 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The site is not reliable. See the guidelines. Your WP:COI and self-promotion is a separate issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"We should only include opinions from notable reviewers (either long track record of publication or writing in an important outlet, such as a national newspaper)." I've been a reviewer for 6 years, first at Albumfreak, then created Audiopinions. Have also written for Lexington Music Press when they had online magazines. I also manage over staff. I get press releases and promotional copies of albums. How much more reliable can you get? 4.252.15.102 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't confuse being a reliable (or long-term) reviewer with being a reliable source. See fallacy of equivocation. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.

I fully appreciate your concern about other unreliable sources being used as professional reviews. If you want to list some of those articles, I can take a look at them and remove as necessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And there's always the concern about notability, but that's a different noticeboard. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

See I feel UTG, BOTMR, Audiopinions, and other sites like this that are very active and actually care about what they put out as reliable and sites like Sputnikmusic to not be reliable. That's my last two cents on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homesick_%28A_Day_to_Remember_album%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.15.102 (talk • contribs) 2011-12-06 00:00:49 (UTC)

The only thing that I can think of here is that being a long-time reviewer makes you an expert. That information is not recorded anywhere on the site so it's not particularly clear how long you've been an expert reviewer.

Again, not sure why you think Sputnikmusic isn't reliable, but that's a different discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually JUST edited my about page last week to make it shorter and am thinking about writing a complete new one. Also debating on adding a staff page. I started my amateur writing on Sputnikmusic back in 2005 (first review http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/3574/Darkest-Hour-Undoing-Ruin/ ) then during Albumfreak days i posted on both sites, but have only posted 4 reviews from audiopinions in late 2009/early 2010 in which i started devoting all my time to AO. 4.154.4.167 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Walter's quite right to point out my words have been misinterpreted. Someone putting up reviews on MySpace for a bit doesn't really equate to, say, having a proven and long track record of being paid by major media organisation to write reviews.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dragon's Den

I'm wanting to use Dragon's Den as a source for Dragon Quest and all of its spinoff titles. They have been used as resources by:

• 1up - listed as a resource
• GamePro used as a source

I'll note that both sites also credit the Dragon Quest shrine which meets SPS for the same type of articles as its been used extensively as a source in video game encyclopedias. I want to see whether I can use this site to help flesh out details as well.∞陣内Jinnai 02:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a site set-up by a fan and doesn't appear to have any editorial oversight. Can you show us anything to the opposite? Doesn't seem to be a reliable source. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a fan site. Those 2 sites I link to are RS magazines. They both list the site as a resource for Dragon Quest related articles. I am asking then is that enough evidence to claim that it would pass as a SPS (except for the usual suspects like forum posts). As cooberating evidence, both sites also link to the DQshrine which has been accepted as a valid SPS due to being used in encylopedias as well. Those are the only 2 sites the two share in common.∞陣内Jinnai 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the fan who creates the material is a subject matter expert? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm suggesting by inference of other RSes that they consider the author a website.∞陣内Jinnai 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A dedicated website. Looks like a non-starter to me. I clicked on Contact to see who is the author, but it doesn't even give a name. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

On its own, yes. I am not asking you to denote whether in a vacuum where you look only at the website it is a RS, but whether the RSes of 1UP and GamePro which are RSes that it is enough to confer the status of a subject matter expert to the site. If you mean that would be enough, please state it more clearly because it appears you are not taking into account SPS which is what I'm asking about here, not a website with a general editorial oversight.∞陣内Jinnai 17:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no inference from other reliable sources conferred on a fan site. There is no vacuum. The only way that this fan site could be considered a reliable source is if the creator of the site has been recognized as an expert by either publishing material in a recognized source or by proving credentials as a lecturer on the topic. The fact that individual pieces have been picked-up while other have not indicates that the writer's material may not always carry the same quality. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific astrology sourcing

Since my thread on general astrology sourcing didn't have a very positive result, I am back with some much more specific questions. In Tetrabiblos, are any or all of the four papers by Deborah Houlding currently cited RS for the article? As far as I can see, 1993 is an introductory article on Ptolemy published in Traditional Astrologer. 2006 seems to be a 1676 text copied by Houlding and annotated by her with an introduction, published on her website Skyscript. 2007 is a paper at a conference attended by both academics and practising astrologers, appearing as a paper in Culture and Cosmos. 2010 is an extended version of the 2007 paper on her website. If RS, are they used appropriately in the article? Is there any unacknowledged quotation or plagiarism? I won't comment further in this thread by the way, unless I'm asked to clarify or give further info. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This comment appears to be part of a ongoing general campaign to question all sources where the author has specialised in the history of astrology including Dr Nicholas Campion and Dr Patrick Curry and others as a reason to remove quality content. Deborah Houlding is one of the foremost experts in the history of astrology and in particular the details of traditional practice of astrology. As you already know, her work was peer-reviewed by experts in the field (Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum) and its reliability has been commented on by independent and influential academic sources. See here, where Stephan Heilen – in the most authoritative account of Ptolemy’s work to-date (Ptolemy in Perspective, edited by Alexander Jones) refers to her contribution and how it influenced his own theories. He describes her work as “rigorous research” which was conducted with “painstaking accuracy”. This is obviously an excellent testimony which demonstrates that her work is treated seriously, discussed and deemed worthy of consideration by the other notable historians who work in this specialist area. Robert Currey talk 13:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith Robertcurrey; Itsmejudith has specified a neutrally worded question, and deliberately drew our attention to Houlding publishing in Culture and Cosmos as a result of a conference with academics innit. Reliability in Wikipedia is on a claim by claim basis—I regularly oppose the use of Time, The Times, and the New York Times where they're inappropriately used, it isn't universal per author. But thank you for your superior knowledge of Houldings work and noting her work's reception, it'll help me to respond more fully below. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Page 51 and 84 of Heilen explicitly criticise Houlding's capacity for analysis. In particular on 84 he accuses Houlding of misquotation of another scholar. On page 78 he explicitly disagrees with Houlding's evaluation and reliance upon ancient sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing no indication in her article indicating that Houlding has any particular standing as a historian or an expert on ancient manuscripts. Can she even read Ancient Greek? I am sure that there are dozens (hundreds?) of legitimate experts on Ptolemy and his works, so why rely on Houlding? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• ITsmejudith - I am asking for a clarification. Why have you asked if she can be accused of "unacknowledged quotation or plagiarism?" Do you have any grounds at all to suspect her of that, or is this purely because, as an astrologer, you believe she must be guilty of fraudulent behaviour?

Hrafn, have you not read the post Robert Currey gave above? He gave an active link to a Google book page in the most scholarly publication available, where her work is discussed, commended and shown to be influential in modern scholarly research. The reliance is made to Houlding because of her known expertise in tracing the history of the transmission of the text, and presenting the details thoroughly and clearly. The link to the paper which covers the research (peer reviewed and published in an academic publication), is here. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 14:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Zachariel, I believed that Itsmejudith was asking about the use of the source in wikipedia in relation to plagiarism, and will be responding on that basis below when I get in front of a library computer. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Positive citation of a single article in a single work does not establish reliability (particularly as it is not unequivocally positive -- it takes her to task for taking for granted the authenticity of a manuscript subject to widespread doubt). I'm finding little indication on Google Scholar that Houlding is widely published in the academic literature on the subject, let alone that she's widely cited. Currey made a large number of fairly strong assertions, but provided very little breadth of substantiation to support them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to clarify my original question. I don't suspect Houlding of plagiarising anyone. I suspect we may be plagiarising Houlding by not sufficiently paraphrasing her work. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Her reliability is established in the first instance by the fact that own research, into a highly specialist area - was peer-reviewed and published in an academic source. The fact that it was commented on, and commended by another scholar working in the same area, establishes its credibility independently (unless we query the authority of Heilen's opinion too). And it was acknowledged as being rigorous and put together with painstaking accuracy. It is perfectly normal for scholars to refer to the work of others, and state where their views agree and where they differ. She is quoted at least 12 times in that scholarly work, (probably more, I can only count the ones on the previewed pages). Why should Wikipedia need more than this?

Itsmejudith asks us all to consider this to see if Houlding can be accused of "unacknowledged quotation or plagiarism?". The answer is no. I would still like to know why Itsmejudith should raise that question in the first place. Are there any grounds at all for this? If not, it is just a bad faith assumption, and part of the continuation of anti-astrology scare-mongering that has become far too apparent over the last few days -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• No, this only establishes reasonable reliability for her 2007 paper (which, as far as I can see is only cited once in Tetrabiblos), not for the rest of her work. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To be used on WP, sources have to be reliable and independent, and for a scholarly topic such as the interpretation of an ancient primary document, they have to be recognized by the mainstream academic community. I can find no evidence that Houlding has any scholarly credentials. Her article on WP doesn't mention any Deborah Houlding.

The only indication that she has ever been taken seriously as a scholar is the paper in "Culture and Cosmos". The journal is published by the Sophia Centre at the University of Wales Trinity St. David. It claims to be peer-reviewed, but it does not post its peer-review policy on its website [[62]].

However, there are grave doubts about whether it counts as an independent source. The editor-in-chief of the journal is Nick Campion, who has close ties to the author through the not-independent Astrological Association of Great Britain, of which he is the former president. She had a paper published in a book edited by Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum, who have both received funding from the Sophia Trust (which funds Campion's Sophia Centre), as has the Warburg Centre to which they belong [[63]]. Stephen Heilen appears not to be disinterested either, as he appeared at a conference together with Houlding that was organized by Burnett and Greenbaum and funded by the Sophia Trust [[64]]. Sorry, but this looks like a mutual adoration society to me, and an obscure walled garden within the scholarly community.

As to the individual sources and their use in the article:

Houlding (1993) is published in a fringe journal, and cannot be considered a reliable source for WP. The source is used to support material on the significance and nature of the primary source. It is innadequate for that purpose.

Houlding (2006) is a reproduction of a 17th century Engish translation of an ancient primary source once falsely attributed to Ptolemy, and sometimes appended to his works. The paper is self-published by Houlding, and the material comes from Houlding's own commentary on the text. It is thus not reliable for the interpretation of the relationship between two ancient sources, for which serious scholarly sources are needed.

Houlding (2010), from Culture and Cosmos, has been described above. This source is used to support amterial on the history, provenance and transmission of various manuscripts, a topic that requires high-level academic training. Because of the fact that there is no evidence that Houlding has any academic standing at all, it is highly dubious that her work on the topic is reliable.

Furthermore, the relevance of the Broughton quote to the topic is tenuous, at best, and probably not nothworthy outside of the astrological community.

In short, Houlding appears to be an amateur historian with no formal training in researching historical and primary documents. I can find no evidence that Houlding's scholarship is recognized by anyone outside of a small, incestuous group of scholars who cannot be considered disinterested. As such, her works cannot be considered reliable for supporting scholarly material on WP. I agree that there are better sources for the article, and that there is no reaon to rely on Holding. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

To Dominus Vobisdu: I am still awaiting the removal of the malicious comments that you made about astrologers of good repute, in addition to the serious misrepresentation of my remarks that you made to justify your spurious arguments. The request was clearly made on the Fringe Theory Noticeboard this morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&curid=12106325&diff=464198523&oldid=464196771 I am trying to assume good faith, but instead of correcting yourself, you are continuing in unwarranted and unsubstantiated speculation. If the misrepresentation of my remarks is not corrected in all the places you have falsely reported them I will be seeking arbitration.Wendy Stacey (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are doing original research here. WP:SPS has one criteria, has the author of the self-published material been previously published by third-party publishers in the subject area. The answer to this is "yes". Yworo (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For info, Houlding 2010 is stated to be a version of Houlding 2007 "for online publication". Normally I would cite only the journal paper for copyright reasons, would those apply here? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The paper was posted online in 2010. It has a clear notice on it that it is authorised for where it has received online publication, so there are no copyright concnerns. The benefit of making refrence to this is so that the reader can read the paper in full and check the points made. The same approach is taken to the other links.

I am going to consider DV's comments. Something should be done about his implication that there is an unreliable and "incestuous group of scholars" which involves Campion, Burnet, Greenbaum, Heilen and the academic institutions involved in the publication of their work, from the University of Wales Trinity St. David, to the Warburg Institute, London. The suggestion that they are part of a mutual adoration society is more than OR. It is unfounded, nasty and ignorant. It needs to stop, now. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, DV has a right to hold a strong “anti-astrology/anti-astrologer” position. This has been made clear from his opinions and his history of editing in the past couple of months. I have not seen a single contribution that was constructive or neutral in this field and I don’t think he will disagree with my general characterisation of his editing campaign.

What is important is that such strong feelings without any apparent expertise in the subject may drive the wheels of the Skeptical Inquirer but it has not advanced constructive neutral editing on Wikipedia. It is quite wrong to try to discredit any author for the ‘crime’ of pursuing a subject: astrology in which they have a personal interest. It just so happens that Deborah Houlding is also an expert in the traditional practice in this field. Evidently, DV has done a lot of digging around to support his claim and all he has come up with is Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Just because they shared the same platform at a conference or book title, you can no more question the authority of Deborah Houlding than you can question the authority of Charles Burnett, Professor of the History of Islamic Influences in Europe, at the University of London [[65]]. Specialists have connections, work on the same projects, refer to each other in their books and present at the same conferences. Unless you have evidence, we cannot assume that they worked or appeared together because of some back-hand bribe as appears to be implied, but that Deborah Houlding was invited to present with and contribute to the Professor's book for her expertise. Robert Currey talk 18:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

So the Warburg Institute's being pulled into the black hole now ... Why, I used to use their library! Am I, too, part of this charmed circle? And they never even told me. Andrew Dalby 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Deborah Houlding is a professional astrologer. As I see it, she is not being cited as an expert in history or science, but rather to give testimony as to the astrological significance of the Tetrabiblos and the meaning and relevance in astrology for some of the statements made in the Tetrabiblos. The person you'd want to cite for propositions of this nature would not be a historian or a scientist, but an astrologer. Academic sources are preferred but not required, and the people most seriously engaged with Ptolemy's text are currently astrologers, and Houlding has in fact presented papers on Ptolemy to historical conferences. Under normal sourcing guidelines, Deborah Houlding is a reliable source for the astrological significance of the Tetrabiblos. If you are of the sect that imagines that astrology is entirely incoherent and improvised and unworthy of notice, no amount of academic credentials will ever support any astrologer's statement on a proposition in astrology. This implies rules that apply to the subject of astrology that don't apply elsewhere, and I don't think this has any support in policy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just restating my original linked questions. Which, if any, of the four papers currently cited are RS, and are they correctly used at present? Are we careful enough not to plagiarise Houlding's work by using her wording rather than rewriting in our own words? I have posted on the talk page of the article about the use of one of those sources, but will withdraw from the whole area for a week or so after having corrected the reversion of my correction of WP:MOSBOLDSYN. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While I didn't add that material, the Houlding source that gets used the most is her paper on the "terms", which are part of the astrological system of essential dignity. This paper is used for a number of facts, including a textual history of Ptolemy's text, and discusses later astrologers' use of variant details of the table. Her paper is being used as a reference to the textual history, of which hers is the most recent. She is also being cited as a source for the fact of Ptolemy's deep interest to later astrologers. As an astrologer, she is a reliable source to that fact; as a textual historian, she is an amateur, but her work seems to be based on and updates the Robbins introduction, to be generally consistent with it, and this particular document was in fact presented as noted to a peer reviewed publication. None of the claims as to those matters are really controversial, and most are easily verifiable through the primary sources.
She's also cited briefly as one of the authorities for Ptolemy's biography.
Her website also contains a useful external link to an interactive presentation that illustrates how the hot/cold and moist/dry dualities are "logically" assigned to the several planets by Ptolemy based on their perceived distance from the Sun, the Earth, and the Primum Mobile. This is simply a utility link that accords with what Ptolemy said and astrological tradition as well.
Finally, her site is used as a reference for the Centiloquium, an astrological text that's almost certainly not by Ptolemy; her site hosts a seventeenth century English translation with astrological commentary. That text has its own article. Her introduction is quoted for the fact that the Centiloquium was associated with Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and often printed with it, but wasn't really by him.
I did not see any extensive quotation from any of these sources in our article. As a source, Houlding is reliable (and indeed, more reliable than any non-astrologer source could be, under normal rules of reliability) for matters such as the influence of Ptolemy on later astrology and the astrological motivations behind any text variants in the table of terms. She is at least acceptable on the textual history and life of Ptolemy; before I'd reject them I'd want to know if there are any facts cited to her that are contested. She is worthwhile as an external link showing the logic of Ptolemy's assignment of temperaments to the planets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Houlding's work has not been well received by other scholars, (Page 51 and 84 of Heilen, linked above, explicitly criticise Houlding's capacity for analysis. In particular on 84 he accuses Houlding of misquotation of another scholar. On page 78 he explicitly disagrees with Houlding's evaluation and reliance upon ancient sources.). Houlding's publication in Culture and Cosmos is a reliable publication per the review policy of the scholarly journal. Houlding's extension of the work is not reliable as Houlding has been sharply criticised in Heilen for poor research practices and the extended work is not peer reviewed. Houldings publications, "Houlding, Deborah, 2006. "Ptolemy's Centiloquium transcribed and annotated"" and "Houlding, Deborah, 2010. "Ptolemy's terms and conditions"; expanded edition" are self-published. I've not seen a relevant EXPERT argument made—I'd suggest that high honours in a non-sectarian professional association of astrologers; An MA by Research or PhD in cultural astronomy/cultural astrology from that Welsh university; Or multiple scholarly publications (I'm counting one right now) would be relevant. I am however willing to hear other EXPERT arguments not yet put. Houlding's publication in Traditional Astrologer I'm not going to esteem—Ulrich's doesn't hold a listing for it as a scholarly or professional journal. Houlding, 2007 in Culture and Cosmos is reliable as a scholarly article. The rest require an EXPERT argument, with the argument being demonstrable prior to the year of publication (ie: if you want Houlding 1993, you need to demonstrate WP:EXPERTise prior to 1994 or so). Remember: I am very interested in presentations of astrological EXPERTise and I'd view this the way I'd view engineering or medical expertise: I want to see open professional society recognition, particularly higher professional recognitions (compare GP to Surgeon to noted and awarded Surgeons), or a MA Research or PhD (specifically relevant) in the field, or a MA Coursework (specifically relevant) combined with publications in open (ie: non-sectarian) professional journals (as opposed to scholarly journals) which are demonstrably peak professional journals.
• As far as plagiarism goes, compare Wiki "the fact that the Tetrabiblos presents one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" and Houlding 1993 "Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology, - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'." That's close paraphrase out of the box (bold), plus misrepresentation of opinion as fact (ital). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk of plagiarism is inapposite. We cite Houlding, we acknowledge Houlding: that's the whole basis of this discussion. If we didn't cite Houlding, but borrowed her words without acknowledgment, that would be plagiarism. "Plagiarism" in this discussion is just another stick to beat Zac with.

As to the bits of text that have been labelled "plagiarism", I have seen two, one in the discussion above and one on the article talk page: both consist of less than a sentence. (Sorry if I have missed some larger infraction.) I saw another incident of this recently, so I know that rephrasing sentences that echo cited sources is the obsession of the month, but parts of sentences? Parts of properly acknowledged sentences? For what possible reason? Andrew Dalby 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree that plagarism is not the issue here. As for Fifeloo's argument about expertise, this pertains to scholarly expertise only, and astrology is not a recognized field of scholarship, not taken seriously by anyone outside of the astrological community". Knowledge of astrology as an astrologer can not be equated with knowledge of astrology as a scholar. Their sham "professions organizations" and sham "journals" also are not recognized by the scholarly community as anything but a tasteless parody. Therefore, Houlding's claim of scholarly expertise is supported solely by a single peer-reviewed paper in Culture and Cosmos. As for that source, the original 2007 version can be used. The expanded 2011 version cannot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The original poster explicitly asked about appropriate use and plagiarism. Close paraphrase of a source is plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I admire Itsmejudith's work everywhere else on Wikipedia that I have encountered it nad have never had the slightest urge to disagree with her before, I think in asking about both plagiarism and reliability in that posting she was (a) asking something that's irrelevant to this board and (b) trying to attach her doubts about the Tetrabiblos editing to a current obsession among Wikipedians. If I'm really wrong, Judith, please, please say so and I will apologise for my error.

Fifelfoo, this really isn't relevant to this board but since you give a definition of plagiarism I must point out that it's incomplete. See the first para of plagiarism: "the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work". You left out the last bit. Andrew Dalby 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know if it is appropriate to look at this issue more specifically on this board - perhaps in a new thread? Fifelfoo has pointed to a comment that he says might be constituting plagiarism, because it uses words that are close to the phrasing of its attributed source. Although the query is separate from the question of whether the source is reliable, I think it is relevant here since it concerns the reliable sourcing of comments. I am treating his comments seriously but I genuinely cannot see that there is any case for suggesting plagiarism in the example he made. That example can be easily fixed, but it is the policy that is being used that concerns me; because if there is really no case to answer here (as I believe), I don't want to have to change the wording of one comment and then go through the repeat of the exercise over and over. But if he is correct, then we won't need to have prolonged disputes because I will understand that a substantial rewrite may be necessary to avoid any concerns about plagiarism. So I would like to create a new thread that separates that issue from this one. If no one objects I'll do that. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree this seems to need discussion. Where the best place to discuss it might be, I honestly don't know! Andrew Dalby 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fifelfoo, you have cherry picked from points of scholarly debate to present an unbalanced analysis of how Houlding's work was received by Heilen. You say that his text on p.51 and p.84 "explicitly criticise Houlding’s capacity for analysis". But it doesn’t. The note on p.84, concerning a comment he makes on p.63, is relating to a disagreement which he qualifies under conditions not used by Houlding "at least not in the chapter of the terms". On p.51 he reports on whether Ptolemy fabricated a detail in the manuscript (an argument he supports) and all he says is this:

"But all this does not prove that Ptolemy was lying. That may be the reason why different scholars hold different views. While Houlding (2007) takes the old manuscript’s authenticity for granted and does not even mention the wide-spread doubts of other scholars, Fetiguere is convinced that Ptolemy is only pretending".

That is not explicit criticism against "a capacity for analysis".

There are several references to Houlding in the text and numerous in the footnotes; on some points Heilen disagrees, in others he supports his arguments by acknowledgment to hers. Heilen refers to her as a scholar and would not be taking her work so seriously if he held it in the standing you suggest. Page 93 is excluded from the Google preview but on this page alone six of the 13 footnotes cite her work as his source, or recommend it for further reference. We don't need to speculative about this because he gives his own summary of the overall value of her work quite clearly in footnote 259, where he states:

"Houlding works from a practitioner’s perspective. Her research project came to my knowledge while I was preparing my own paper on the same topic for Caltech. The present article profited greatly from Houlding’s kind permission to read hers before it went to the press, especially with regard to the host of valuable information that she presents. As to the insights that she draws from it, my notes make it clear where I am indebted to her. Note, however, that the two articles are dissimilar in purpose and method, mine being chronologically arranged, strictly philological, and interested in the problem of the authenticity of the Ptolemaic Terms (while renouncing to the laborious discussion of each one of them)."

This is clear enough to show that your declarative statement "Houlding’s work was not well received", is inaccurate.

Can we move on, and simply accept that the same standards apply to this article as any other? On the talk page it has been suggested that we should consider the possibility that another (unused) footnote in one of her articles, which references another work - none of which is used in the article - might be subject to slight misinterpretation if we read her words in this way instead of that. There seems to be a desperate attempt to engage in non-article related private investigation, which is not appropriate and very difficult to relate to the motive of supposedly only having her professional interests in mind. -- Zac Δ ^talk!

DV - you have a sham argument. As shown above, the scholarly community clearly does consider such works as something other than "a tasteless parody". The only thing that cannot be taken seriously is your ridiculous argument that all the involved scholars, scholarly institutions, academic presses and Springer itself are acting in some kind of "incestuous plot". It is a waste of good time to even have to read your silly arguments-- Zac Δ ^talk! 12:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Zac, this is precisely how I deal with sources in other articles, as you would know if you read RS/N regularly. You're getting no more, and no less, than what unregistered professionals publishing into a field (history of science) where scholars publish receive from me normally. Given the wide variety of complete amateurs publishing in SPS presses in the professional field of contemporary astrology, I really do want to see clear cut examples of high professional standing before accepting two self-published works and one work from a press so small it doesn't have an Ulrich's entry. In fact, I'm being rather generous because I'm treating the assertion that astrologers form non-sectarian professional societies with good faith (and I have reason and suspicion to believe this is the case). Thank you for extensively quoting footnote 259—this goes towards establishing Houlding's credentials as an EXPERT pracitioner. It doesn't go towards EXPERT status as a historian of astrology as the rather cutting commentary in the other footnotes indicates. Do you have any details of Houlding's other professional achievements and recognition, as I don't really accept the word of a single historian of ideas being demonstrative of professional expertise as a practicioner. (I am asking these questions because I am assuming with all good faith that reliability can be demonstrated) Fifelfoo (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, but give me a day or two because I want to finish other tasks first and facing time pressures. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did manage to stay out of the discussion. Thank you all very much for your contributions. I think we have consensus that Houlding 2007 can be regarded as RS for astrology articles, probably exercising caution. Her other papers aren't RS, although the 2010 version of the 2007 paper is a convenient link. I wish I had asked about "close paraphrasing" instead of "plagiarism", but in the end the discussion seems to have been useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't argue with that! Andrew Dalby 19:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Nexus Group properties (Airlock Alpha, Inside Blip, et al)

Hi,

I'm expanding the article for Russell T Davies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and given that I'd like to send it back for another FAC, I want to double check the reliability of the sources I'm adding, in particular, this this article. I've previously used Airlock Alpha (owned by the same people as InsideBlip), but I haven't used it in an FA before. I'm confident the content of the linked article is correct, but the reliability hasn't needed to be tested before... am I assuming it should be used in the same way, say, a Gawker property is (i.e. WP:NEWSBLOG)? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement in question is that Cucumber, a drama about gay middle aged men, is the same thing as his old project MGM, a drama about gay middle aged men. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Michigan Rock and Roll Legends

I've noted an editor inserting a lot of references to http://www.michiganrockandrolllegends.com/. Is this website a reliable source? It seems to me like it's one person's passion as opposed to something like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't really see anything to indicate that it is more than a well-put-together fansite. So, no, I doubt that it will meet WP:RS. Looking at the Suzi Quatro entry brought back a few memories though... :) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Green Mile

On the talk page for this article, there is currently a discussion about whether the film's credits are a reliable source for the filming locations. I have argued that it would be a primary source, and that we would still need a reliable third-party source to back it up. I would like to hear some other editor's opinions. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We can use primary sources for non-controversial information, and I think the application of the cats in this case is not really controversial, but I may be missing something. Seems to me that the information is sourceable, see [66]. Also, it's good form to post a note on the talk page when you bring an issue to a noticeboard to let other editors know about it.... --Nuujinn (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The film credits would normally be considered reliable for the sort of thing usually contained within film credits - there are some consequences to the distributors if the credits are wrong. As to location, they may not be comprehensive, and may need to be supplemented with other sources, which may also be primary sources, or may be secondary sources. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here is exactly what the credits state: "Filmed at the Warner Hollywood Studios, West Hollywood, California and on location in Nashville, Tennessee and Blowing Rock, North Carolina". This is what I paraphrased when I added this information to the article; no more, no less. RepublicanJacobite insists that the film as a primary source and must not be used, but I have failed to find where in Wikipedia policy this is stated, so I disagree. --78.149.107.127 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I should say that the information probably can be sourced elsewhere, but that is not grounds for dismissing the information sourced from the film as unreliable. --78.149.107.127 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTOR, WP:PSTS, and WP:USEPRIMARY confirm that works of fiction are acceptable sources about themselves, and that non-interpretative summaries don't count as original research. Ergative rlt (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

TechCrunch and Engadget

Are TechCrunch and Engadget considered reliable sources for software articles? SL93 (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

TechCrunch has editorial oversight by an editor that has written for the New York Times, InSync, USA Weekend, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, and Money. Engadget has many editors. Both of the websites are now part of AOL. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the question is reliable for what? What statements would be sourced, and what are the specific references? --Nuujinn (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is Read It Later and the sources are used in a reference list. SL93 (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think they work for that article. Is there a dispute? I see no talk page discussion. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There isn't, but I was wondering because the sites call themselves blogs. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. Yes, we tend to not use blogs, but if a blog is associated with a reliable source, or if the author of a blog is an acknowledged authority, we can use them. In this case, we have software reviews of a software package in two popular tech magazines. I think they are fine for this kind of use. Others might disagree, however. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I consider them a bit, well, AOL, but as a source for consumer reviews they are fine in my opinion. Elinruby (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep close to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and you'll be okay. Tell the reader that TechCrunch says this and Engadget says that, rather than trying to state some omniscient truth. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

authorship of peer reviewed paper as reliable source

I know that the the mere existence of a peer reviewed paper is not a RS for the claims that are made within that paper, ie a peer reviewed paper on cold fusion does not mean that a) cold fusion is real nor b) cold fusion is accepted by mainstream science.

I am compiling a list of LENR researchers and before I move it to mainspace I want to be sure that I use RS, not violate BLP, etc.

Here is my question:

Can a peer reviewed paper be RS for the fact that its authors are LENR researchers ?

J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. P. G. Forsley have jointly published a paper "A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan" in the peer reviewed journal "J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1765-1770 DOI:10.1039/C0EM00267D "

The abstract reads "In his criticisms of the review article on LENR by Krivit and Marwan, Shanahan has raised a number of issues in the areas of calorimetry, heat after death, elemental transmutation, energetic particle detection using CR-39, and the temporal correlation between heat and helium-4. These issues are addressed by the researchers who conducted the original work discussed in the Krivit and Marwan (K&M) review paper."

I would like to stress that I am aware that:

• It is not always clear to pin point a paper to LENR, but in this case it is clear
• Being a co-author of a paper does not automatically qualify a researcher as LENR researchers, but in this case "issues are addressed by the researchers who conducted the original work". So all authors can be equally treated as LENR researchers.

btw, I am sure that they are indeed LENR researchers because they are actively participating in the LENR field, ie publishing papers, regularly attending the International Conference on Cold Fusion or other conferences like the cold fusion sessions at the APS or ACS conferences, additionally some of them have websites which show they are identifying themselves with the field and some are mentioned in news articles.

Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:OR argument to me, and a fallacious one. I've checked the original Krivit and Marvan paper, and it neither mentions nor cites (e.g.) Storms. Hence the claim that all the authors of the new paper are "researchers who conducted the original work" is obviously wrong (a more plausible interpretation is that "some" of the authors are "among" the original researchers, which may well be true). Hence no, this is not a good source for your claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts on your list (beyond the question of source reliability)... first: It sounds like you are falling prey to the fallacy of "inherited notability"... thinking that, because Low-energy nuclear reaction is notable enough for its own article, anything related to Low-energy nuclear reaction inherits that notability. That may not be the case.

If you are thinking of making this a stand alone list, you will need an introductory paragraph or two... wherein you would establish for the reader that LENR researchers (as an identifiable group of people) is, on its own, a WP:Notable topic. To do that, you will need to cite some sources that discuss "LENR researchers" (as a distinct group of people). If you can not establish that the sub-topic of "LENR researchers" is notable on its own, it would be better to include the information within the main Low-energy nuclear reaction article (something along the lines of: "Prominent researchers in the field include...").

Second, when it comes to determining the authors of peer reviewed papers, you should limit yourself to the first few names. Those listed last usually had a marginal involvement in the work behind it. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is reliable but it's a primary source and requires original research to arrive at the information you want to use it as a source for. Also as Blueboar argues the question remains whether those people are notable - that would have to be established based on WP:ACADEMIC. Usually some of the co-authors on such a multiauthored aper are just graduate students working in someones lab, they don't generally become notable for that. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my point wasn't to question whether the individual people were notable (my guess is that some are and some are not), but rather to question whether being a "LENR researcher" is notable enough, as a concept, to rate a stand alone list article. I am questioning the notability of the group... not the notability of the individuals within the group. We need to establish that "LENR researchers" (as a distinct group of academics), or "LENR researcher" (as a profession) is a notable enough topic justify being listed, before before we can get to the question of which LENR researchers are noteworthy enough to be included on such a list. Blueboar (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right of course, I was assuming the list itself had passed notability and it was only an issue of the individual researchers to include to pass notability. It would require sources talking about LENR researcher's as a group (i.e. is there a professional organization or journals for LENR research?).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I share these worries about notability, group and individual, and would also ask what you will do about scientists who researched LENR for a while and then stopped. I believe that Japan had a state-funded research programme for a while and then it was abandoned. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. Some of the points I hadn't thought about yet.

• Notability as a group is not an issue. In numerous articles about cold fusion you'll get statements like: "Nonetheless, a network of dedicated cold-fusionists still toils away in a vineyard that looks pretty barren to almost everyone else." or "Cold-Fusion Graybeards Keep the Research Coming". It is always a statement along the lines of an Asterix and Obelix comic where "...a small village still holds out bravely against ...".

Furthermore there is the "International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS)" who also issue their own peer reviewed journal.

• Notability per researcher is more an issue. Additions to the list should be very conservative also in regard of possible BLP issues. Mentions in news reports, several peer reviewed papers or regular participation and presentations on the international conference of cold fusion (ICCF) should at least make it clear that the researcher is part of the group. Then per Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE#Lists_of_people notability within the group should also be verifiable.
• Scientists that only researched for a while and then stopped. Many of the researchers that looked into the subject in the 1989-early 1990s until the whole phenomenon was completely debunked are not "cold-fusioneers", ie not the researchers that should be on the list. Researchers who have stopped due to retirement like Pons or Fleischmann themselves or Oriani should be on the list however.
• Regarding the OR. I think that some synthesis is allowed per Wikipedia:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis. If a researcher is active in the field with publishing several cold fusion papers, and verifiably attending the cold fusion conferences then the synthesis must be allowed that this researcher is a LENR researcher.

Kindly let me know if this is the right noticeboard to discuss further, I really appreciate the feedback, but if I have to take this discussion somewhere else just let me know. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_Userspace_BLP_issues. And for what its worth, I don't see the logic of POVb's assertion that "Notability as a group is not an issue". There are scientists working on many subtopics within many fields, and one could probably construct a 'group' based on whatever topic one considered significant using POVb's methods - but that doesn't make the group real in any sense beyond happening to meet the membership criteria that the complier sets. This is WP:OR. It is also questionable in that it (a) gives what is a minor field in terms of its generally-perceived significance undue attention, and (b) is liable to give undue weight to the significance of any LENR-related research that individuals may have conducted, to the detriment of any other work. And then there is the matter of whether such a list should include those who have done research into LENR, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing to it (of which there are more than a few examples) - should they be on the list? The whole thing looks to me to be an attempt to give a topic on the margins of science more credibility than the evidence suggests can presently be justified. If LENR ever achieves the results claimed by some of its proponents, I'm sure that Wikipedia will have articles on notable individuals, and maybe even a justifiable list of such individuals, but per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we shouldn't assume in advance that this will occur. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood "Notability as a group is not an issue". I meant to say "the group as a group is notable" numerous news articles talk about the group of cold fusion researchers as an "outcast" group. Close writes in his book "The phenomen then separates the scientists in two camps, believers and skeptics. Interest dies as only a small band of believers is able to 'produce the phenomenon' (...) even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the original practitioners may continue to believe in it for the rest of the careers."

"This is OR", well that is merely your claim. Now my claim is, "It is not OR". There are numerous news articles that talk about the group as an outcast group and identify the group as a group. Francis Slakey, the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society, said that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits ... A cult is a group, no ?

Again you argue UNDUE, I don't think that is a valid point. I have the casual reader in mind that reads a news article about a group of "cold-fusioneers" and would like to inform himself on who might belong to that group.

I already answered your question "whether such a list should include those who have done research into LENR, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing to it (of which there are more than a few examples) - should they be on the list?" I think they should not, because those scientists would not like to be associated with cold fusion. And most of those researcher did their research in a timeframe of two months in 1989 and then went about their normal business and never looked back.

Your Crystal Ball argument is completely misplaced. I am not arguing that cold fusion works, I am not arguing that cold fusion is or should be accepted by mainstream science, it is not. What I do want to do is shed some light of the whole story of cold fusion. That is a perfect and valid motivation to create a list of participants of the field. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And on what source do you base your assertions about who would, and who would not wish to be "associated with cold fusion"? Though you seem to be making an assertion here that 'cold fusion' and LENR are one and the same thing, which is very much a contentious question. Basically, you seem to be constructing a list to suit your own criteria, and then looking for arguments to justify it. And no, the fact that some individual refers to some other individuals as 'a cult' is hardly evidence that they are notable. And again, not actually evidence that the individuals referred to were the same people as your 'group'. Your list is OR, and is constructed to present LENR/cold fusion in a particular manner. If Slakey has referred to unnamed individuals as "a cult of fervent half-wits", then going out of our way to try to decide who this refers to is not only OR, but a clear breach of WP:BLP policy too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And on what source do you base your assertion here that this list is a clear breach of BLP policy. I am compiling a list of scientists who are researching the LENR field, who meet at the ISCMNS conferences. It's simple as that.

I think that your complaints are not suitable for the RS/N. You better wait until I put this article in Mainspace. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you more than once, BLP policy applies to articles in user space too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform that the BLP issue left the noticeboard without anyone replying but you Andy. It seems you are pretty alone with you views. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume that. If only one person responds here, it is usually an indication that the rest of agree with him or her. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If a comment on the BLP noticeboard explicitly raises the question whether a userspace-list is a BLP issue and nobody replied, then I think it is fair to conclude that indeed nobody thought it was an BLP issue. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

The following sources are being challenged on the basis of not being independent (as well as being a fringe theory, but that's a discussion for another noticeboard). My reading is that WP:IS, in addition to being merely an essay, discusses self publication (i.e. a personal website or vanity press book). I believe that these peer reviewed journals and book chapters are adequate and should not be removed or challeneged on the basis of failing reliability or not being independent. The page is obviously paraphilic infantilism and the relevant quotes/sources are:

Sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund discuss a series of case studies in which they make a distinction between pedophiles who imagined themselves as young children because "...this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children)" while infantilists would imagine they were children to increase the power difference between their preferred sexual object of adult women spanking and scolding them. Freund and Blanchard make a similar distinction regarding the use of diapers, with pedophiles wearing them due to their association with children while infantilists associate them with the "role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy."^[32]

In the limited number of extant medical case reports some clinicians have attempted to explain the behaviors associated with infantilism in terms of obsessive compulsive disorder,^[33] as "a concurrent cluster of symptoms found in a variety of psychiatric disorders",^[34] or as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynaephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.^[35][32][12]

Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993^[32] and cited by Blanchard, James Cantor and Howard Barbaree in 2009,^[12] infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia.

The sources being challenged are:

• 12 Cantor, James; Blanchard, Ray; Barbaree, Howard (2009). "Sexual Disorders". In Paul H. Blaney and Theodore Millon (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 530–7. ISBN 9780195374216.
• 32

As far as I know references 33, 34 and 35 are not an issue. The challenge to these sources has been ongoing for a while. Bittergrey (talk · contribs) claims that because these people are coworkers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health they fail independence. I believe that because they are an article in a peer reviewed journal and a chapter in a university press, they are both reliable and independent. The latest section this can be found being discussed is here. As mentioned, there is also a discussion about whether this is a fringe theory, but I believe that could be deferred to the appropriate noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the DSM is also raised, I believe this was dealt with on the RSN previously; see here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I must not understand the question. Independence, for reliability purposes, means independent of the subject, not independent of all other sources about the subject. Having a paraphilia (and certainly being an activist promoting its public acceptance) might constitute non-independence, but how exactly could one's co-workers' publications make someone affiliated with any paraphilia?

It's like saying that a professor of mathematics is somehow "not independent" on the subject of basic algebra if any of his or her colleagues also write about algebra. (We've never yet seen a non-independent source on the subject of algebra, because nobody has a conflict of interest on the subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I consider the question absurd and don't think any of the policies cited by Bittergrey are relevant. However, edit warring is occuring over this point so I'm seeking outside input in an attempt to settle the issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim "...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia".

This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adultpsychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993.

• Freund, K., & Blanchard R. (1993). Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, pedophiles, and fetishists. British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 558-563

Blanchard and Freund wrote an article almost 2 decades ago(which is a long time in the field) likening all fetishes as being internal projections of outward desires, he specifically cites: dressing as a women as normal heterosexual desires focused inward, wanting to be amputated(acrotomophilia) as an inward projection of an attraction to amputees(apotemnophilia), and infantilism being an inward projection of an outward desire for children(pedophilia). I don't see how these theories from so long ago would be given any weight in today's world, the author republishing a short mention(1 paragraph) of his theories in a textbook where he was given "considerable latitude" certainly doesn't demonstrate modern acceptance of them. Per WP:FRINGE unless a source has supported these theories in recent time they should not be given weight in an article on infantilism/cross dressing/apotemnophilia/etc.AerobicFox (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the term "autoerotic pedophilia" is a charged one, it means the paraphilic infantilist is attracted to the idea of themselves being a child - not a sexual attraction to actual children. There is minimal research on paraphilic infantilism (see [67], [68], [69]) and there is a lack of a "mainstream" opinion or focus.

Do these references deserve to be removed on the basis of independence? For me this question must be answered on this board for both sources, and is separate from whether "autoerotic pedophilia" is a fringe theory. If we're discussing it's status as a fringe theory, I would also argue that WP:REDFLAG doesn't necessarily apply - though the claim is surprising (only in that it uses a loaded term), it is made in mainstream sources that are not self-published. There is no prevailing view (the statement in the article about the DSM is not correct, see here; the DSM's statement is about a specific behaviour of masochists, not paraphilic infantilists in general), and no conspiracy is claimed. The statement itself is clearly attributed to specific authors, could be reworded to avoid the use of "pedophilia", but overall I think is adequately dealt with.

Given the much larger research base on cross dressing and amputee fetishism, I would prefer more recent sources for those articles. However, there don't seem to be many for paraphilic infantilism (essentially nothing for "paraphilic infantilism" since 2000 [70]). I'll try digging a bit more to see if I can find some more recent studies, but I didn't have much luck in the past.

The third quote is the most surprising and inflammatory, and though I would prefer to leave it in, it could be removed (it was only made visible today, see fifth block of changed text as well as discussion here). Do you have an opinion on the other two quotes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to read the whole sentence. It doesn't say "It is a fact that X = Y". It says "Ray Blanchard says that X = Y". Do you have any reason to doubt that Blanchard holds that view? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear my opinion is that "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" is an exceptional claim since it falls under "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The OP really should have brought this to the fringe notice board, but since he brought it here asking if the author is independent of the sources, then the answer is obviously not. Blanchek seems to have attempted to plug in most of his biography as he references 15 of his solo authored works(going back to the 80s) as well as over 9 co-authored works. Clearly these sources are not independent of the author and the textbook should not be treated with more reliability than the original sources themselves, what we should be discussing is whether the original original sources are fringe or not, and not whether the textbook is independent of them since it's already clear that they aren't.AerobicFox (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Blanchard?

There is no "prevailing view within the relevant community" however. There's no single accepted theory for what causes a paraphilia, let alone paraphilic infantilism. There are mutliple proposed hypotheses, but Blanchard's ETLE isn't criticized or contradicted anywhere that I've seen, in general (where I haven't looked much) or specifically for PI (where I have looked). There's no orthodoxy to be fringe against, merely a small number of scholars theorizing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, I'm willing to agree that "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" would be an exceptional claim. However, that is not the claim being made. The claim being made is much smaller, and it is, "Ray Blanchard said that infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia". A publication in which Blanchard actually says that infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia is surely as strong a source as you could possibly wish for supporting the claim that he said this. "He said this" is not the same sort of claim as "this is true". I'm not aware of any evidence that this claim (that Blanchard said this) is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". I rather thought it was very widely accepted that Blanchard actually said this, and that no source at all disputes the fact that Blanchard made this claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim being made is much smaller, and it is, "Ray Blanchard said that infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia"

If there is no claim to legitimacy being made then I have nothing to debate. You have to show or prove the importance/noteworthiness of this view, and I believed this discussion was about whether this source is reliable enough to do that. To make myself clear, I do not believe this source reliability demonstrates the notability of this author's opinion, for the above stated reasons. If you agree that no claim is being made to the legitimacy or importance of this theory then it follows that such a claim has no place per WP:WEIGHT in this article.AerobicFox (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow. There's no rule that says only "legitimate" claims are DUE. At articles like Cold fusion, describing distinctly illegitimate claims is very obviously DUE. The question for RSN is only this: is the source named sufficient to support the exact claim being made? In other words, do we have any reason to believe that the exact sentence in question is factually wrong?

RSN doesn't traffic in more complicated questions, like whether describing this particular theory about the cause of paraphilia, or any of the theories, is DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Freund's ETLE theory has been cited elsewhere and in more recent books, but Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree is the only place I've seen paraphilic infantilism discussed specifically. I could provide examples where the ETLE is favourably cited regards other paraphilias, but would that help with paraphilic infantilism specifically?

Questions for everyone - does this discussion apply only to the statement about "autoerotic pedophilia" or does it apply to all three statements? And would this be an issue if the phrasing were changed from "autoerotic form of pedophilia" to "sexual attraction to the idea of one's self as a child"? A less technical but still accurate summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond my competence as an encyclopaedic editor as I don't regularly handle appropriate medical synthesis, I suggest that you ask at WT:MEDRS and ask them to come here to comment, as this is a complex MEDRS issue? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. Did you read the text carefully? It's not being presented as the Truth™. It's being presented as speculation by an expert: We had this idea, and here's a description of the idea. Do you really think that a publication in which Blanchard announces his new theory is "unreliable" for what his theory is? You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources for simple descriptions of their contents, after all.

I'd be more sympathetic if someone was trying to pass this off as the one True™ explanation for the paraphilia, but that's not what's going on here. The text says "They discussed some case studies... They attempted to explain... They proposed this model." What more authoritative source could you possibly imagine for the remarkably tiny claim that they said something about this subject, than the publications in which they actually say things about the subject? Maybe sworn testimony in which Blanchard affirms that he really did have this theory? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, MEDRS might be appropriate, psychology is kinda borderline on whether it's a medical or even scientific issue. Paraphilic infantilists themselves don't seem to consider themselves a "medical" population and their activities aren't illegal. The psychology or sexology wikiprojects might be other places to ask. The thing is, it's a sexual choice and not a disease so how does medicine apply?

I regularly edit medical pages and a lot' of pages that fall into the fringe category. I don't think this is a fringe idea, primarily because it appears and is discussed in peer reviewed journals and a book from a respected scholarly press. Normally the struggle is to find any scholarly discussions and keep out unreliable sources from webpages, vanity press and the like - here we have scholarly discussion and citation. Given the dearth of sources on this topic (and it's quite the dearth as multiple sources note that there is hardly any research on the topic) I would think Blanchard's work could be used cautiously and judiciously. Primarily, this is met by attribution - it's something I hardly ever do because I think it reads badly and waters down the statement to a simple opinion. However, in this case that seems appropriate. Erotic target location errors in general do appear in the scientific/sexological literature [71], [72], [73] (all by the same author), [74], from google books [75] and google scholar [76] more generally.

Anyway, caution in the use of primary sources is always warranted irrespective MEDRS. I hadn't thought of PSTS as a reason to remove, mostly because there simply aren't many sources. Since this is a potential etiology and not a proposed treatment, and since there is so little work on the area, I would suggest this is a situation where a primary source like this one could be used (particularly given the reliability of the journals and book publisher themselves). WP:PSTS does permit judicious use, and in this case there's no interpretation - just an attributed summary of an idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantalism isn't MEDRS, but the claim that paraphilic infantalism is self-directed pedophilia is a medical claim: as you note, it is a proposed etiology and one which has criminal and severe medical implications—it is making a claim that it isn't a sexual choice as such. I concur that attribution is appropriate with this claim; and I'm happy that if erotic target location errors are widely considered to be non-fringe, then it is includable by attribution based on your MEDRS experience. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no criminal or medical implications though! Paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia, and this distinction is made in the article. A pedophile is attracted to children. Paraphilic infantilists are attracted to the idea of themselves as children. There's no crime because the paraphilia drives them to act like children - not have sex with them. The preferred partner is an adult, one who either also plays a child or one who assumes the role of an adult or parent. It is quite unfortunate that Blanchard and others chose to use the terms they did, but the idea has essentially no overlap or relationship with pedophilia except through a strict adherence to a linguistic straightjacket. A comparison would be the difference between a rapist and a person who entertains fantasies of being raped. The former is illegal and abhorrent, the latter disturbing to most people - but perfectly legal. Another comparison would be the distinction between homosexuality and transvestic fetishism - one is attraction to a member of the same gender, the other is attraction to the idea of being a different gender. If the impression is that paraphilic infantilists have anything in common with pedophiles, then please help rewrite or suggest this out of the page! If replacing "autoerotic pedophilia" is too loaded, then I am perfectly happy replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blanchard's claim is pretty uncompromising—it needs pretty uncompromising sourcing: multiple independent receptions of the theory. You'd need to speak to a MEDRS expert about whether its multiple independent receptions of the theory generally, or the theory as applied to this paraphilia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not trying to support Blanchard's claim (which may or may not be right, and maybe next century they'll have an answer). Our job is to support the Wikipedia article's claim. The Wikipedia article claims that Blanchard said these things. That claim doesn't require multiple independent sources that approve of Blanchard's idea; it only requires a source that proves that Blanchard said these things.

Remember the Monica Lewinksy scandal? We're not trying to support the equivalent of "Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman". We're only trying to support the equivalent of "Bill Clinton said, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'". That's a much smaller claim, and one eminently suit for a non-third-party, primary source support, e.g., a video clip of Bill Clinton actually saying those words. This is exactly the sort of situation in which WP:USINGPRIMARY sources is wholly reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are better off replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. I can't comment on whether this is a fringe theory. However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the book, which I have not examined, is intended to be an anthology of differing views, there's a presumption that these views have some claim to academic legitimacy. So I am not sure why quoting the book for what an author says in it would be wrong. Elinruby (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Source 12 is a textbook written by Ray Blanchard which references source 32 which was also written by Blanchard in 1993. Blanchard in fact referenced 20+ of his own works in that textbook which describes itself as aimed towards students taking "a first course in adultpsychopathology", and also states that its "chapter authors were given considerable latitude" in what they wrote. This doesn't mean that all 20+ of Blanchek's works dating back from the 80s should gain additional reliability because they were "published by the Oxford Press" or because they were "published by a reliable source twenty years ago" in an ever changing field. Blanchard's theory here "Erotic target location errors" was not directed specifically at infantilism, but was applied by Blanchard to dozens of sexual paraphilias and activities. The specific application of the theory to indicate that infanitilism is pedophilia turned inward is directly contradicted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which consider the two conditions to be unrelated. If you want to source the opinion that infantilism is pedophilia turned inward in a manner which demonstrates some sort of importance or credulity to the theory then you will need to find a better source, preferably one in a modern peer reviewed journal which addresses the mainstream notion that the two conditions are unrelated.AerobicFox (talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for having to catch up.. even though I'm mentioned by name, I wasn't informed of this discussion. Seems someone only wanted one side represented.

• WLU - "As far as I know references 33, 34 and 35 are not an issue."

Reference #35 (Dickey) is an issue. Not only is it written by one of Blanchard's coworkers, it doesn't even use the word "infantilism." Additionally, it doesn't cite the F&B article, just one of Blanchard's other theories. #33 and #34 don't apply to the fringe theory being discussed.

• The DSM, the consensus document of the APA and possibly the most verifiable source immaginable, categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism, not pedophilia. Even one of WLU's 'experts' used it as a reliable source for a definition of infantilism[77]. (This was back in 2008, before that expert had an alternative book of his own to promote.)
• Source 32 (Blanchard et al, or F&B) also does not mention infantilism at all.
• Source 12 (Cantor, Blanchard et al, or CB&B) is the only source connecting Blanchard's fringe theory to infantilism. Others use a wide variety of other terms. Furthermore, it only uses the word 'infantilism' five times. For comparison, the word is used five times in the article in text dedicated to the fringe theory. The three sources, with only five uses among them, are cited 13 times in the article.
• WhatamIdoing... Somehow I'm not at all surprised to see you here backing up WLU. Dejavu.
• AerobicFox: Basically, WLU is asking us to disregard the APA so that he can use this charged term, complete with the implied legal consequences. AGF limits our discussion of why he is so intent on this, but we do need to ask why the charged term is needed at all? What value does including this unaccepted speculation in the article offer? Is it worth the damage?
• Fifelfoo: "MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

I agree fully, and moreso, wish to point out that Freund 1993 doesn't mention infantilism at all. As a result, Cantor 2009's assertion that Freund 1993 applies to paraphilic infantilism is, in a way, primary.

• WLU: "Questions for everyone - does this discussion apply only to the statement about "autoerotic pedophilia".

This is the infantilism article. If the authors don't call it infantilism, us claiming that they really meant to call it infantilism is SYNTH. We've been over this a dozen times, WLU.

• WLU: "You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources for simple descriptions of their contents, after all."

If this were the "gyneophilic masochists" article, maybe, but it isn't. F&B present a list of neologisms and don't connect any of them clearly to infantilism.

• Fifelfoo: "Paraphilic infantilism isn't MEDRS, but the claim that paraphilic infantilism is self-directed pedophilia is a medical claim: as you note, it is a proposed etiology and one which has criminal and severe medical implications."

I couldn't have written it better.

• WLU: "There are no criminal or medical implications though!"

Where exactly is this place were those with a type of pedophilia are given the benefit of the doubt?

• Elinruby: "However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal."

Actually, Oxford only published that "Fruend and Blanchard (1993) referred..." and "They interpreted..." Oxford didn't publish any indication of confirmation or merit. It also only dedicated four sentences of the 21 page section to the theory. Here, it is being given 10% of the article.

• AerobicFox:"The specific application of the theory to indicate that infantilism is pedophilia turned inward is directly contradicted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which consider the two conditions to be unrelated. If you want to source the opinion that infantilism is pedophilia turned inward in a manner which demonstrates some sort of importance or credulity to the theory then you will need to find a better source, preferably one in a modern peer reviewed journal which addresses the mainstream notion that the two conditions are unrelated."

...and that was written by someone who isn't on Blanchard's payroll.

Finally caught up - Sorry about that. So much for getting to bed early. By the way, this weekend I noticed WLU contacting editors who had taken his side in the past and asking them to get involved again[78]. I asked him to stop[79]. Please keep an eye out for other places he might take this, again hoping that only one side will be heard. (On the topic of forumshopping, except for those who have had past success at WP:RS, who takes fringe and POV issues here?) BitterGrey (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Note attempt to make this sound like an obscure etiological issue with "no 'mainstream' view" here[80].BitterGrey (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, where does the DSM and ICD-10 discuss paraphilic infantilism? The ICD-10 I've never seen mentioned, but I am quite certain the DSM does not discuss it and does not directly contradict Blanchard's ELTE theory in any way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, Cantor himself used the DSM as a defining reliable source for infantilism[81]. Either Cantor was competent or incompetent. If you believe he was competent, accept the relevance of the DSM as a widely published, medical, consensus document that lists infantilism under masochism, not pedophilia, thus contradicting the fringe theory. If you believe he was incompetent, biased, editing in bad faith, etc., you shouldn't be pushing this fringe theory, since it is only Cantor, Blanchard, et al that ties it to infantilism. Which do you believe?

I also notice that you have again deleted a reference to the DSM, making that section once again completely one-sided[82]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming a public figure (James Cantor is both the subject of a wikipedia page and an editor) is incompetent based on a single wikipedia edit which they did not replace after I removed it is probably not a good idea per WP:BLPTALK, and in my mind does not affect the reliability of a source he co-authored with three other people. Your assumptions also leave out simple errors, mis-remembering something, and the fact that Oxford University Press has peer review. I consider the edits made by James Cantor (talk · contribs) to be utterly irrelevant to the reliability or content of a peer reviewed journal or book chapter. I frankly can't believe you keep bringing it up as if it had any relevance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to carefully read my comment before making BLP accusations. This would be yet another accusation that you made against me but had to retract after reading my comment (eg [83]). (You have even accused me of adding that citation to the DSM's definition of infantilism - the one that Cantor added.)

For those reading, please note that WLU commonly refers to the fringe theory as Cantor's hypothesis or theory. (eg [84]). BitterGrey (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a convenient shorthand, I do refer to the chapter by the first author. However, reliability comes from the publisher as well as the author's expertise. Further, you appear to be attempting to discount the reliability of a source based on a single edit made by a wikipedia account. The reliability of Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree 2009 does not rest on whether one change among the nine that one of its authors made as a wikipedia editor more than three years ago. The choice is not between James Cantor being a competent wikipedia editor versus any source he touches being worthless. The source stands or falls on its own merits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a case of a mysterious new phenomenon, but an opposition to the categorizations of the consensus view of the APA, a nationwide body of considerably more than three psychologists, as published in the DSM. ...And even one of those few has demonstrated that he considers the DSM relevant. What WLU is presenting in multiple locations in the article is is a fringe view, not even mentioned outside the facility of origin. BitterGrey (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous editors who have stated that the DSM does not address paraphilic infantilism - myself, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, WhatamIdoing and regarding the DSM point at least, AerobicFox also seems to agree that the DSM does not discuss it [85]. Who among wikipedia editors agrees with you that the DSM discusses paraphilic infantilism, and further that the American Psychiatric Association has a consensus view on paraphilic infantilism? And keep in mind, I am using Blanchard and Freund (1993) to source and expand on the idea that paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia are different things. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might want to reread what AerobicFox actually wrote, accept that FiachraByrne's last relevant edit[86] was to revert you, note that James Cantor did cite the DSM as relevant, etc. BitterGrey (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that the few sources that WLU has offered do not overrule the mainstream position that infantilism is not a form of pedophilia, as expressed by the APA in the DSM, and in other sources? WLU has again reverted my attempt to make the article more neutral[87].

• Remove all three places where the unreliably supported theory is presented. While it is good to see that WLU might finally be bowing to concerns of WP:TERRORIST, greater concerns remain: Since all of the sources are depended (all coworkers), the theory does not meet the standard set by WP:FRINGE. Given that WLU chose to raise this at RSN, I'll touch on those aspects as well: Since two of the three sources use a list of neologisms which they do not connect to infantilism, WP:SYNTH is necessary to use them in an infantilism article: Any editor seeking to include the material would have to guess what neologism was paraphilic infantilism. Since only one source associates the fringe theory (but no particular neologism) to paraphilic infantilism, it is arguably primary, and so should not be the basis of multiple sections. Furthermore, WLU asserts that the DSM (which contradicts this theory) has no relevance (most recently [88]), and has no sources to support this exceptional claim.BitterGrey (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather note what is applicable to the issue I'm discussing - that the DSM isn't really applicable to paraphilic infantilism and doesn't present a consensus position on paraphilic infantilism. You might also want to note that I have had concerns over the use of the term "pedophile" for a long time (here) and most recently reworded the statement to make it clearer to most readers. FiachraByrne was the editor who added the statement in the first place.

Your claims of fringe theories, neologisms, independent sources and synthesis don't hold up as these are published in mainstream, respected venues that make explicit links to paraphilic infantilism. Since pretty much every single one of your posts misrepresents sources, consensus, policies and guidelines, there's no point in discussing with you further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to open on a positive note, but have crossed it out to avoid it being used as yet another tangent to avoid the more substantial issues. BitterGrey (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And WLU, you are not being "criticized for acknowledging the term that was used on the page was a loaded one, and changing it accordingly while maintaining the idea that paraphilic infantilists don't want to rape children" as you claim in that list of accusations that you have been nursing since March[89]. Another editor may have added the text months ago, but you were the one fighting to keep it[90][91][92][93]...BitterGrey (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think we have a consensus that the DSM doesn't even mention the term paraphilic infantilism anywhere in it, and therefore that the DSM doesn't classify PI as being masochism (or as anything else). Saying that the DSM refers to PI is a clear NOR violation. (It is, by the way, exactly the same error as assuming that the autoerotic pedophilia is exactly the same thing as plain old pedophilia.)

(For those unfamiliar with the text, the DSM says that some masochists may wish to be punished or humiliated by being treated like a baby. This is not at all the same thing as paraphilic infantilism, which is wanting to be infantilized without any feelings of humiliation, and multiple sources confirm that the motivation/emotional response is a critical distinction between the two [e.g., this entry for autonepiophilia.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pg 572, section 302.83, under masochism, in the paraphilia section: "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism"). It is right there in black and white. Even the source WAID posted comments that "...infantilism is classified as sexual masochism in DSM-IV and IV-TR..." I fully agree that not all AB/DLs meet the criteria for a paraphilia. In particular, many won't have the distress or impairment of Criterion B. Another source called this interest that wouldn't be diagnosed as a paraphilia as "Adult Baby Syndrome." This isn't being debated. What is being debated is the assertion that infantilism is a type of pedophilia. Now, WAID, would you mind pointing out where that source claims that infantilism is a type of pedophilia? That is the real issue here. BitterGrey (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theory/theories removed from three places in the article[94].

Those seeking to restore the texts should provide independent sources that infantilism and pedophilia are related in the manner described in the theory/theories. Since the three sources could not even agree on a neologism (even though they all came from the same facility) this will be difficult to do without WP:SYNTH. (Since the DSM is not the only source that classifies infantilism as something other than pedophilia, trying to get the DSM dismissed is not a route to getting this fringe theory/theories restored. Independent, reliable sources will be needed.) BitterGrey (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Holmes would be another example. It seems WLU hopes to provide better support the CB&B fringe ("...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia".) by adding refs to Homes ("This form of paraphilia [infantilism] should not be confused with any form of sexual child abuse, pedophilia, incest, or child molestation"). This is pretty much the direct opposite of the theory he is trying to promote. These are being added to other places in the article, not presented as contradicting the fringe.

Note edit war:[95][96]BitterGrey (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it "says right there in black and white" that "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer." It further "says right there in black and white" that the actual diagnostic criteria are:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Those are the only two diagnostic criteria, and you must have both. There's absolutely no possibility for a desire to be treated like a baby in a non-humiliating, non-suffering way to qualify as sexual masochism, just like there's no possibility that non-humiliating, non-suffering cross-dressing qualifies as masochism, even though that, too, is listed as a possible form of humiliation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WAID, I know that you are indebted to WLU for rushing to your aid when you and I had a disagreement. Before that time, I hadn't had any troubles with WLU. Now the troubles seem constant. How long are you going to continue to rush to his aid?

The attempt at WP:SYNTH to sway consensus is a demonstration that you accept that consensus is against you, WAID. Per WP:BURDEN, those seeking to include a text are the ones responsible for supporting it. If you wish to include a text that states infantilism is a type of pedophilia, sources stating that infantilism is a type of pedophilia are required. Of course, even WLU has waffled his pre-Dec 6th position (he now blames it on me[97]) and reworded the text to the opposite of what is meant before.

Needless to write, either it was a misrepresentation of the sources before, it is one now, or the sources are uselessly ambiguous. BitterGrey (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "rushing to WLU's aid", or anyone else's, and my opposition to your (IMO) POV pushing is not personal—on my end, at least, although perhaps you take it personally. It happens that I'm one of the top 40 all-time contributors to this board, and it's normally on my watchlist. I tend to comment on medicine-related items and on questions of primary vs secondary sources. I would have commented on this discussion no matter who had posted it.

If you find that I'm consistently opposing you, then that suggests that we have fundamentally different ideas about how to deal with Wikipedia. For example, in the other incident you mention, I (and everyone else at the WP:External links/Noticeboard, if memory serves) oppose you adding your personal website about how you have paraphilic infantilism into that article. You accused me there, too, of rushing to WLU's aid, without noticing that I'm the all-time top contributor to that noticeboard. In fact, my contributions there exceed the sum of the next three editors together. So perhaps since my normal activity seems suspicious to you, I should point out now that I'm also fairly active at COIN and several other noticeboards, so that you won't be someday make false accusations about wikistalking WLU or anyone else when you encounter me there as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The troubles seem constant because you keep editing tendentiously and ignoring any editor who disagrees with you despite us apparently agreeing that paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia. Instead, you resort to (like above) accusations of bad faith, bias, conspiracy and irrelevant diffs [98], that you insist on reposting despite it being pointed out that they are irrelevant [99], [100]. Also, every indication is that there is no consensus for your point, Bitter. None. And there never has been. And my stance is the same as it has always been - pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different, and though the use of the words "autoerotic pedophilia" are technically correct according to the ETLE theory, they are too loaded to be used casually and are better summarized. A point I made in August and reworded in December. As WAID said above, autoerotic pedophilia isn't the same thing as pedophilia.

Regarding the masochism point specifically, there appear to be at least two forms of infantilists, those who desire humiliation and those who desire to be treated like an infant for other reasons. This is covered here. There's nothing to be done here. Stop trying to lay blame, just leave it alone. The page makes a distinction you want made - paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia. Remove the tags and just let it go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Has everyone noticed that the comments I make about WLU generally include diffs, so people can confirm them, but that the accusations he is making against me generally link to policies if they are linked at all? (With a few exceptions: WLU probably meant "accusations of bad faith, [accusations of] bias, [accusations of] conspiracy and [posting] irrelevant diffs." Those who follow that diff will see that I did in fact include a diff in another conversation. (This one :[101]). Of course, Cantor thought it was relevant. WLU, please feel free to explain why you waffled on Dec 6th. (Again, here are difs of WLU warring for "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."[102][103][104][105][106][107] from August to Dec 6th.)

Perhaps it is necessary to write that either it was a misrepresentation of the sources before, it is one now, or the sources are uselessly ambiguous. BitterGrey (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I usually consider it adequate to include a diff and an explanation once. I don't consider it necessary to repeat myself in the face of your constant misrepresentation that boders on outright lying. For instance, claiming I'm "edit warring to keep in the term autoerotic pedoophilia"; are you sure I'm not reverting your inappropriate removal of perfectly reliable sources that are alternative theoretical formations and thus not fringe theories? As far as diffs go, here's one that pretty much explains it. I assume you'll keep repeating yourself about James Cantor (talk · contribs) and the DSM, as well as misrepresenting my position on the term autoerotic pedophilia, so I'll almost certainly have to keep inserting it. God knows having said it three times on three different boards apparently isn't enough. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: There is a parallel discussion on this at WP:FTN#Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)... may I suggest a centralized discussion? Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest centralizing here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Blueboar, I had thought the RSN discussion largely dead. So far one of one vote in the consensus has been to remove Blanchard's autopedophilia/masochistic gynephilia theory (which WLU claims is infantilism) from the three locations in the article. However, the productive discussion is long over, and no other editors have gotten involved. It seems reasonably certain that as this discussion gets longer, the odds of additional editors (who might edit) decrease. If no one willing to edit gets involved, this discussion will have been pointless.

Now WLU and loyal ally WAID have added some nine hundred words to that discussion, and WLU has tried to supersede your suggestion to merge with his own, so that readers will be directed to just WLU's and WAID's restart. Any advice? BitterGrey (talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You could start with the advice I gave you on your talk page - instead of treating this like a clash of personalities, you could make the best case you can for your position based on policies, guidelines and sources. Continuously accusing people of bad faith drives away actual contributors. A centralized discussion, as Blueboar suggested, has been created on the FTN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to consider leading by example, and refraining from accusations like "your [BitterGrey's] constant misrepresentation that bo[r]ders on outright lying"[108], etc... BitterGrey (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to call it when you've systematically represented my position so many times without ever acknowleging my many, many corrections. It's not an accusation, it's factual - you've misrepresented the consensus regarding the DSM an enormous number of times, misrepresented my statements regarding the lack of relationship between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, and misrepresented James Cantor's position regarding how the DSM deals with infantilism (it doesn't, and he says so). You're also misrepresenting why WAID disagrees with you - she's given policies and guidelines, you're completely ignoring those points in favour of the belief that it's because she doesn't like you. You've spent almost all of your time and energy attacking the motivations of people who disagree with you rather than dealing with their arguments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My my, what a long list of diffless accusations. If anyone cares, WLU's master list of accusations against me is here[109]. He's been nursing it since February. Of course, if he really wanted to promote conversation, he wouldn't write "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."[110]. BitterGrey (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for discussion on this anymore, sorry I've been away for a while so I'm playing catch-up. The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays. I'd like to correct what I wrote here above, the DSM does not discuss infantilism/adult baby syndrome/etc, except a brief blip in the context of masochism, but isn't really useful for defining infantilism at all.AerobicFox (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotation of remarks by Pope John Paul II

I have been challenged to "find a reliable source" for the remarks made by Pope John Paul II in Los Angeles on 16 September 1987 - as if the link to the text on the Holy See's website were not enough. I can think of no source more reliable than that. So, is this source a reliable one for "the Pope's quote" given here? I think the objector, whom I have informed of my enquiry here, objects to citing this source on the grounds that it is a primary source. But surely there could be no better source for the text of the Pope's talk. Esoglou (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is the interpretation of a four section twenty two paragraph epistle; and, the notability of the epistle as representing something meaningful about Catholicism and abortion. As we aren't the encyclopaedia of the Magisterium, or dissenters, or the hoi polloi, or the militant atheists, or of any particular group we rely on independent secondary sources, preferably scholarly, to WEIGHT different opinions and to interpret primary sources. Your use is unreliable as by picking out a particular paragraph you've acted as a Papologist, and not as an encyclopaedia editor. Find a scholarly text on the Catholic church and abortion (there would be quite a few), and follow the attention and weight of that scholar (or better: those scholars) on how the Church deals with dissent over abortion. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was thinking only of the challenge to find a reliable source "for the Pope's quote". The heading gives the false impression that the paragraph is about the Church in general. The heading should be "View of Pope John Paul II on such dissent", instead of "Church views on ..." With that change of heading, would the cited source be a reliable source "for the Pope's quote"? That paragraph is the only part of the talk that speaks of dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion, which is the topic in that part of the Wikipedia article. With the corrected heading, it is only indicating what this one particular Pope said, it is not presenting an exposition of the Magisterium nor is it weighing opinions of different authorities. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be, if it was coupled with a reliable secondary source WEIGHTed that the opinion of the Pope, or of John Paul II, was significant to Catholicism and Abortion. Even then, it would still be ideal if the source singled out this particular speech of John Paul II's as being representative. And you'd need to cite that source in the paragraph. And even then, wouldn't it be better to write that paragraph out of the secondary source? A scholar search on Pope abortion catholic turns up:

• Cultural Differences in the Abortion Discourse of the Catholic Church: Evidence from Four Countries* M Dillon - Sociology of religion, 1996 - socrel.oxfordjournals.org
• Pope John Paul II and Catholic Opinion Toward the Death Penalty and Abortion* K Mulligan - Social Science Quarterly, 2006 - Wiley Online Library Fifelfoo (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Esoglou (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Fifelfoo: that's pretty much what I said. We don't reprint primary sources, because it's an OR issue and because our job is to reflect reliable secondary sources rather than publicizing anyone's views as if we were their personal press release agency. Changing the heading is nice but it doesn't really have much to do with the objection to the inclusion of this lengthy (and largely irrelevant, which is why I keep trimming it) primary-sourced quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berlinner" - one could quote that from a primary source (we have the footage of him saying it), but it was also requoted round the world with the gloss "Kennedy displays his support for Berlin". There's nothing wrong with a quote, but one needs the gloss as well - the world didn't requote the pope's speech, it summarised and interpreted it, and it's these summaries and interpretations that need to be got at. Folks can be directed to where they can go read the speech - that's what footnotes are for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

"We don't reprint primary sources, because it's an OR issue"? So all the many direct quotations from books and documents now given in Wikipedia articles must be moved down to footnotes and replaced in the body of the articles by glosses and interpretations of what the authors wrote? Better is what Fifelfoo says (and perhaps Elen): quote the primary source so as to have the exact words used, and accompany it with a gloss. The world does quote not only Kennedy's short "Ich bin ein Berliner" phrase (hopefully in correct German) but also longer texts, and accompanies them with second-party glosses, comments and interpretations. There is really no need to change, for example, what Wikipedia says of the Preamble of the United Nations Charter so as to remove the direct primary-source quotation of the text of the Preamble. And what about Ferenc Gyurcsány's speech in Balatonőszöd in May 2006? Esoglou (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Both those examples are dreadful articles. An article on a speech should be like an article on a book. What makes the speech notable? When was the speech given, where, to what audience? What was the context? Short summary of the content, which is the only bit that can be sourced to the speech itself. Then a longer section on responses, significance, implications, aftermath. We mustn't give long verbatim excerpts but instead link to the text on Wikiquote. You're right that there are far too many long quotes littering Wikipedia, and yes, gradually they should be dealt with by appropriate combinations of shortening, moving into footnotes, uploading to Wikiquote. About this specific quotation from Pope John Paul, I believe there was commentary about it in the Catholic press, which should be useful for you, and yes, you can then include a link to the statement itself. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're acting as if you have provided a reliable secondary source and limited your primary-source quotation to the relevant parts, but that isn't true; you've repeatedly tried to stick a five-line primary-sourced quote from the pope in the article, along with many other primary-source-only quotes and comments and other inappropriate sources/original research, in the service of making the article conform to your political views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@Itsmeudith: I disagree that recognition from the "Catholic press" is sufficient. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just Catholics, and using niche sources whose goal is to promote an agenda will obviously skew articles away from due weight. The comments should have received coverage in mainstream or scholarly sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought a commentary from the Catholic press was quite in order provided it was attributed as such. The due weight argument is a bit iffy here also, if we start applying due weight by numbers around the world to catholic things I rather think a lot more things should have a catholic angle! Perhaps we should just ignore that aspect. Dmcq (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@Roscelese, I didn't say that commentary in the Catholic press would be "sufficient"; I said it would be useful. The Catholic Herald, for example, is mainstream, but since it has a particular perspective weight must be considered. Searching for such articles will be useful because other sources will probably be thrown up in the process. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

CFLapedia

A site called "CFLapedia' is being used across many BLP's as a reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=CFLapedia Appears to be a mom&pop site. Or just a pop site. I don't think it meets WP:RS. Its fans/proprietor disagrees. Vehemently. Research the site and nuke and destroy its usage on Wikipedia if you see fit. Cookiehead (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I deleted this section about the same time you deleted the other one. It does indeed appear to be a site maintained by just one guy making it a self-published source. Unless there is some sort of independent attention that indicates it is reliable, it doesn't look like an appropriate source - particularly for biographies of living people. The one guy I searched for (Oatten Fisher) I couldn't find any information on google books and google news seemed to turn up a non-football player. The best thing I would suggest would be to find out where the guy maintaining the 'pedia is getting his info from and use that instead. What pages are you discussing this on? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

wall street journal on the 22nd of October 2011

The article, ‘Better ways of fighting inflation, ‘ ran on the wall street journal on the 22nd of October 2011. It was written by Jack Hough. In the article, he sought to explain the ways in which investors were trying to cushion from the effect of inflation. Though there was no threat from inflation basing on the price stabilization of commodities, he noted that the investors were insecure about their investments and were as such seen to move into purchase of the inflation protected securities. Hough referred to a recent auction, in which the 30 year Treasury inflation Protected bonds received a heavy bidding, which had not been witnessed in a period of over a decade. Because of the increased demand of the securities, the outcome was the reduction in the yield which saw the prices fall below 1% which was a record low.

Analysis The move by the investors was due to misinformation. Considering the incentives offered by Treasury inflation protected securities, the investors lost focus in their profit seeking. The complication is that the bonds rate of inflation is adjusted against a theoretical figure, consumer price index for all urban consumers, which is derived from hundreds of goods and services. Since consumption varies between individuals, the index on its own is not an accurate figure. At the same time, many investors in the United States are already enrolled in the social security scheme which accords retirees CPI-U indexed payments. This is already an inflation-indexed security. The investors also failed to consider the fact that if inflation reduced rather than rise, minimal returns would be experienced from the TIPS investment. This could have been as a result of poor research into the inflation trend (Smart, 2008). As a matter of fact, the inflation scenario was scaring and could have driven financial analysts to quiet corners. The investors were, therefore, looking at the immediate solutions and.

FIGHTING INFLATION Not at the long term scenario. By investing in the TIPS, they could only get slim returns and forego excellent incentives in case the stock prices went up. TIPS have a constant rate of payment of premiums and the investor is taxed throughout the life of the bond. The payoff, however, is due to the uncertainty of the market. If the inflation rate increases, the investor does not lose on the principal investment. It has no risk rating. Though an advantage, it holds the investors capital, which could have been invested, in more dynamic markets. If the rate of inflation reduced, the returns for the bond would still remain low (Stoker, 2010).

Conclusion According to analysts, the best way to cushion against inflation while looking at profitable prospects is to spread investments over a wide base. Investors could get incentives by buying into commodities like real estate and energy. The stock prices for energy and land are always on the uptrend: an investor can cut an excellent deal by investing in such stocks. Another probable option is investing in Master Limited Partnerships (Smart, 2008). These have an added advantage of passing the increasing costs to consumers. Adventurous investors should think of creative ventures to pursue instead of trying to match up with the rate of inflation. This way, they make money in the most unlikely of situations. To facilitate their ventures investors need to be well informed od the current market situation and expected projections. This can only be achieved through the use of experts who can predict likely gainers and losers. Portfolio investments would also go a long way in protecting the investor’s interests (Stoker, 2010).

References Hough, J. (2011, October 22). The wall street Journal. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from online. Wsj.com Smart, W. L. (2008). Introduction to corporate Finance. Ohio: Cengagc Learning. Stoker, R. (2010). Master Limited Partnerships: High Yield Ever Growing Oil “Stocks” income Investing for a Secure, Worry Free and Comfortable Retirement. New York Richard Stoker.

Er... what? This is the noticeboard for discussing whether sources are usable as references for statements in our articles. Is the above supposed to be a statement, a reference? In what article? --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing - or plagiarism?

The text in the Wikipedia article on the Tetrabiblos states that one of the reasons for the work’s enduring popularity is due to:

"the text being one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" (ref to source)

That statement is directly attributed to the author of an article which states:

"Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'".

Fifelfoo has suggested that the paraphrasing of the source is too close to the original text, and that "Close paraphrase constitutes plagiarism, even when acknowledged as it takes the words out of another's mouth".

There is no complaint being made here because I know Fifelfoo gave this example in good faith as an indication of the sort of thing that he considers could be a problem throughout. But I am confused because this is clearly attributed and not my notion of plagiarism at all. If it is, according to Wikipedia's standards, then it seems to be something we should all be made more aware of. Therefore I would like to get a clearer consensus of opinion on this. Is it really the case that there could be an argument for plagiarism here?

Please keep in mind that the query does not concern the reliability of the source, but only the reliability of the sourcing and whether this comment makes a legitimate use of its sources, or effectively engages in plagiarism.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Gordian solutions - find a way to change it so the problem goes away. In this case, I would simply use a direct quote, which could be attributed or not. That looks like the sort of thing I would use if I wanted to get around the technical definition of plagiarism - five identical words in a row - but couldn't think of a better phrasing. Another option would be to rephrase it to say something like "The Tetrabiblos is a comprehensive documentation of astrological principles and techniques, which may account for its popularity and longevity." It doesn't give an answer that is generally applicable but it does resolve this example. WP:INTEXT does support the idea that a close paraphrase is a point of concern, as does Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to avoid inadvertent plagiarism. However, both imply that the real issue is a close paraphrase without attribution or citation. If you you want a general principle, I would suggest it be the importance of inline citations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the rule that five identical words in a row is plagiarism. My view is that the shorter the statement, the more difficult it is to create a variation that accurately conveys the information without using the same wording. When we consider that the paraphrase is both short and attributed, I don't see a problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a RS issue. Please take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it isn't a copyright issue either ... It looks as if there was going to be a Wikipedia:Plagiarism/Plagiarism problems page, but it isn't active. Anyway, I agree whole-heartedly with Jc3s5h: there's no problem. I said some similar things above and won't repeat myself. Andrew Dalby 19:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm very old school, but I would suggest it is borderline and perhaps a bit over the border toward plagiarism. That being said, it appears to be well intentioned. I think that perhaps it's harder for those not raised on cribbing notes by hand to make the distinction (or perhaps I'm just old and cranky). In this particular case, I think a direct quote would make sense, or perhaps something such as "the Tetrabiblos is consider by modern astrologers to be one of the first comprehensive treatments of astrology" (although I am basing that phrasing on the snipped presented above alone, and do not have the advantage of context). WLU's version is good, too. More importantly, however, I think that WLU's suggestion of inline citations is well taken--that makes it perfectly clear where the material came from, which would aid a copy editors or gnome in improving the wording such a question arise. Perhaps we do need better clarification, it would seem to be a good idea. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What about one of the earliest extant/surviving guides? TFD (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I've already changed the wording, so that's not the problem. I'm also looking out for this and erring on the safe side just in case. I gave the example as an illustration to get clarity over the policy and principle. I cannot see a case to answer here myself because there is an inline citation, and I know of nothing in the plagiarism guidelines, on or off Wikipedia, to suggest otherwise. If there is I would like to have a reference to look more deeply into this. I too think it would be good to have some kind of 'plagiarism problems' page to explore this kind of thing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A five word descriptive phrase using very common words? Imho calling this plagiarism or in any way exceptional or exceptionable is absurd. No one would claim that the particular expression "oldest complete manual of astrology" (instead of 'most venerable exhaustive tome on astrology') is 'their work' for which 'credit is due'. Such a stricture would be unworkable and apply to every page on wikipedia - to the titles of some pages even. If there is no simpler or shorter phrase modulo such meaningless elegant variation, plagiarism is unlikely. If it were plagiarism, disguising it by paraphrases as suggested above would not change that fact, so paraphrasing is worse than useless.John Z (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoid duplicating central phrases. Broad synthesis of secondary sources assists in this. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we do need a noticeboard for such questions :) John Z is surely right that where there is plagiarism, to "avoid duplicating phrases" doesn't make any difference, because, at root, plagiarism is the stealing of ideas. Stealing the words in which those ideas are expressed is simply the quickest way to do it. On the other hand, for plagiarism to exist there must be the intention to pass off these words and ideas as one's own. That's why there is no plagiarism in a case such as the present one -- a simple statement immediately followed by a proper attribution to the source that supports the statement. Andrew Dalby 12:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that, as others suggest above, naming the source in the text sentence, e.g. "Deborah Houlding describes this work as ...", ensures no one could even suspect plagiarism. And I think that's what I might do in an academic paper. I would probably add e.g. "correctly" or "accurately" to show that I am not disagreeing with her. But in fact, in an academic paper, unless there could be some disagreement I would have no need to attribute this statement at all -- to do so would be excessive. Houlding would be in my bibliography, and would be separately footnoted and mentioned in the text principally for information that was original thinking (which this isn't) or controversial (which this isn't).

As the WP:Plagiarism guidelines say, attribution within the sentence of text can cause problems. Being neutral and abjuring original research, we can't add the word "correctly". So it makes it look, to the casual reader, as if Houlding is taking one view when others take a different view: it misleadingly suggests a controversy. As those guidelines also point out, this whole area is especially difficult for Wikipedia. Andrew Dalby 13:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree: WP:INTEXT attribution normally signals a minority or fringey viewpoint on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this counts as plagiarism. It might be close, perhaps, but it's not over the line. The commonness of the phrase (do a web search for "one of the oldest complete") is a significant factor. Repeating a very common phrase does not infringe on the original author's rights. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Kaczynski

First off, this is a BLP so of course the sourcing has to be high quality.

In Richard Kaczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the following sources have been proposed to support that the subject has been "a lecturer on magick since 1990".

1. ACE: Starwood Speaker Roster - a simple list of who presented in what year, without details about what they presented, whether they lectured on bunny rabbits or juggled chainsaws.
2. Crowley Without Tears lecture offered by Richard Kaczynski at the 1990 Starwood Festival - a master copy of an event program from a single event in 1990, with some pages upside down for copying, folding and stapling into a booklet.

I don't believe either of these can be considered reliable, particularly not for this article as they are not independent and had a financial interest in promoting the event. Neither of them actually verify the statement, even together. However, I believe we need third-party reports or reviews of these events or a reliable biographical source that actually states the fact being supported. Combining multiple non-independent event announcements would violate our policy against synthesis and original research and would constitute misuse of primary sources, would it not? Yworo (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me say several things about this. First, the second citation was placed instead of the first, so the value of the first is moot. Second, I think the bar is being set a bit to high for as simple a statement as this. An example of a lecture he has given on the subject as early as 1990 at the biggest event in America in this field has been offered. (The quality of the graphic reproduction is irrelevant; the event did not begin posting online catalogs until 1994.) It was not offered to assert notability, just to support the statement that he has been lecturing on this subject since this year. Yearly examples for the time between then and now could be supplied, but to what purpose? Third, I think the notion that such a statement should require a 3rd party report or review of "he has lecture on Magick since 1990" is way over the top. A review would just supply someone's opinion as to the quality of his lecture(s), an issue that is not mentioned in the article. Fourth, I believe a listing in the program and/or catalog of an event or in the curriculum of an educational organization or institution is sufficient for such a simple assertion; the notion that some publication must review a lecture or class merely to note its existence is a bit absurd. If, say, a teacher at Yale taught a class in law for ten years, it is likely that the only citation would be in the catalog containing the curriculum of those years; it isn't likely that some magazine or such would do a review of this class. Nonetheless, it would certainly be a notable credit to the teacher that he taught such a class at Yale for ten years. Fifth, none of this would violate Synthesis, since the same source was being offered, and listing different lectures to support this simple statement (and again, I don't see the need in the first place, though I suppose one could be placed on the discussion page of the article) would not combine different data to create a new conclusion not made in either sources. It would not violate original research, being published objective material simply listing the lectures that were given and when, in the official records of the hosting organization, not the editor's assertion that "he was there and so he knows". The implication that there was a "financial interest" is also irrelevant; what possible interest could there be to a reference to a lecture given 21 years ago? (Just for the record, Kaczynski was never paid for a lecture at Starwood, nor is he a member of the organization that runs it.)

I'm sorry to be so long-winded about this. I don't think this is a major issue, except that the editor bringing it up has nominated the article for deletion. Other citation requirements have been placed in the article, some which I think raise the bar a good deal on some rather simple statements. I would be interested in knowing what, if any, citation needs to be added that is comparable to other Wikipedia articles' requirements for this simple statement. In the meantime, other editors and I are working in good faith to update and improve the article, and it is my hope that these efforts will satisfy the Wiki community in general. Rosencomet (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

These seem to be primary sources demonstrating the fact that he lectured 1990-1996. If that is a notable fact (the Starwood page disarmingly describes it as "useless knowledge") I don't see any problem in using those sources to support it. Andrew Dalby 13:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Letter to the Editor and NYTimes quote on One Taste

This is a question about a source used in context. This diff is a series of edits by Billpress, a former member of One Taste quoted in a NYTimes article. (The edits are just on line 56. Ignore line 48 which are intermediary edits to another section.) Billpress believes the Times misquoted him, and he has recently edited OneTaste to show his actual views of the organization. These edits are sourced to his Letter to the Editor to the NYTimes which is reproduced here on his blog. It seems that a letter to the editor can be a reliable source if the paper publishes it, and if the writer is the topic of the article. But here it refers to the writer's views about a third party / organization. It also seems that there should be a way, for an individual who is named in an article and who shows up in good faith to correct the record, for them to have some recourse. But I don't know how. More detail and proposed solutions are at User_talk:Billpress

--Voila-pourquoi (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is quite a tentative comment (there may for all I know have been previous discussion of similar cases). A newspaper such as the NYT would make its own judgment about such letters: they would judge that there was some reason to publish a correction, and they would judge that statements in the letter concerning third parties posed no legal problem. What I'm saying is that the letter should essentially be treated as any other signed contribution. How we treat it would then be a matter of weight (and BLP). I think if I were writing this I would tell it as it happened: give the paper's/reporter's claim first and then the correction, in both cases with direct quotes of three or four key words. I would say "correction" and I would not say "misquote" because, though "misquote" may be justifiable, it is a direct reflection on the reporter/writer, whose professional work is not relevant to our page. Andrew Dalby 09:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! What you've said really helps us move forward. It raises two questions: 1) Is their also an WP:OR component here? If the blog post is being used as a substitute for the published Letter because that's no longer available on NYTimes.com, then it seems the link should only consist of the original document, i.e. not include on the same page the letter writer's story about it. 2)does there need to be any vetting that cpanel77.gzo.com is in fact presenting an accurate copy of the NYTimes Letter?--Voila-pourquoi (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Published sources don't have to be available on line. It is important to cite the letter from the NYT, with original publication details, because that is the text that the NYT agreed to publish (and no doubt checked). The original letter-writer, being active in all this, could no doubt send a scan to other editors who are in doubt.

I don't see an OR element in this. Others will want to comment -- also on the question of additionally citing the blog (as a handy on-line source for the letter text). The question of whether it is a reliable copy does arise, and such questions have certainly been discussed here recently. Andrew Dalby 11:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So it sounds like a solution would be:

• include both the NYTimes article quote and the quote from the Letter to the Editor
  
• keep the quotes succinct (3 or 4 words might be tight, but under 10)
  
• avoid characterizations like the word “misquoted”
  
• the Ref for the letter should cite the NYTimes issue that published it, not the blog. However the blog may be used for the URL portion of that Ref.
  

Does that sound right?
--Voila-pourquoi (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I would have preferred someone else to comment on how we refer to the blog copy of the letter. Since no one else has, for what it's worth, my suggestion is not to put any link at "url=" (because there is no official online copy) but, after completing the "cite news" template, to add the blog link manually in the same footnote, with a text such as [ Available on Bill Press's blog]. This makes its status clear. Otherwise, I agree with everything you say! Andrew Dalby 09:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiple sources offered to label a person as being "Bigot of the Year"

Resolved

At Talk: Melanie Phillips, several sources are offered as reliable for the claim that she was awarded "Bigot of the Year" by Stonewall. At WP:BLP/N the discussion focussed on calling her a "bigot" but those who wished inclusion aver that the award is sufficiently notable and has RS sourcing that the name-calling is allowable (most outside views there were that "bigot" is quite a contentious claim, is clearly opinion, and likely should not be in any BLP). However, the claim that a source with sufficient circulation becomes "reliable" has been made, and I ask for additional opinions. And is there any circulation which automatically makes a source "reliable" for claims in a BLP?

The query is whether the editorial nature of the publication uses fact-checking, or whether it publishes rumour etc. without doing so (or uses only "tabloid" standards for fact checking). And are any of these sufficiently reliable for labelling Phillips as being "Bigot of the Year."

"Stonewall.org" as giver of the award is SPS on this as far as I can tell.

"Pinkpaper.co.uk": "Pink Paper" was, in fact, a "tabloid" before it went to the web for financial reasons and stopped publiscation. In fact it proudly states it covers "from politics to the latest celebrity gossip." [111] which pretty much erases it as a WP:RS.

"Divamag.co.uk": "Diva" makes no claim as to being a news magazine in any way: "DIVA aims to deliver the best information, inspiration and online shopping to lesbians everywhere! We aim to provide excellence in innovation, information and entertainment for all our customers, and to make them feel individually special, and connected to our wider community. We provide the highest-quality magazine, retail experience and web presence possible for gay women and are dedicated to creating and evolving a magazine and a community to be proud of." seems also not to indicate any attempt to be a reliable source. [112].

"Attitude.co.uk": "Attitude" is also questionable as an RS - " Teeming with style, irreverent wit and exclusive celebrity content," is absolutely a tabloid attitude [113].

Many thanks for any new input on these. Closest I could find archived was "Pink News" being rejected as RS, and some other "special interest" publications being uniformly rejected, but nothing on these specifically. Collect (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting test of our verification policy. My feeling is this. We often use bodies making awards, I mean positive awards, as sources. Nobel for Nobel Prize, Academy for Academy Award, etc. On that basis I think the fact is verifiable from Stonewall. Now comes the big but. This news is on the margins of notability. If it wasn't picked up by TV news or the newspapers, and given that it relates to a BLP, I think you have to err on the side of leaving it out. There might be other views here, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I would cautiously agree with that approach. However, I think there's another angle which should not be waved aside too quickly. It may be the case that this was big news in the gay press in the UK, but not in the general press. Would that ordinarily mean that something gets at least a passing mention? --FormerIP (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ordinarily, yes. There must be thousands of topics for which we expect coverage in the gay press but not elsewhere: opening of a new gay venue, obituary of an LGBT activist, detailed reports of Pride celebrations, too many to think of. It's the BLP aspect that's of concern here, also Philips' notability isn't confined to LGBT communities. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess my unease is that BLP means we should write conservatively. But there's a fine line here between that and writing conservatively.--FormerIP (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

An option would be a discussion of her writings/viewpoints on homosexuality followed by "...for which she received the 'Bigot of the Year' award from the UK LGBT charity Stonewall." The org is barely notable enough for a page with the current sourcing and fairly full of coatracking but there are suggestions it's worth keeping [114], [115], [116], [117]. The "bigot of the year" award has also received mainstream attention - [118], [119], [120], [121], [122]. I would personally be OK with using Pink News or even Stonewall's own website as a source, but perhaps that's my liberal bias. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is taken in the constructive way it's intended, but would it be sensible if the advice given here was more closely restricted to the subject matter of the noticeboard, ie the reliability of sources? If editors weigh in about ancillary issues of notability or concerns regarding WP:BLP policy there is the strong likelihood that - as in this case - an editor with a minority viewpoint in a current discussion will WP:FORUMSHOP until they get the opinion they seek. I'm not questioning, for instance, Itsmejudith's stance on notability, but it surely strays quite far from the purpose of this forum and would be more conveniently expressed in the appropriate place for the consensus discussion, the article's talkpage. Exok (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Considering Collect's heavy appeal on the grounds of labelling sources "tabloid," it should be pointed out that in the UK the term also refers to Tabloid (newspaper format) and not necessarily and only tabloid journalism. The Pink Paper was literally that paper format, as indeed in The Daily Mail, which Phillips writes for. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Um -- try not to attack editors - in the case at hand, the publications specifically and absolutely meet WP:TABLOID which is not dependent on paper format, but on treliance on features about celebrity gossip etc. Cheers - and it would be nice if you address the issues and not simply attack editors who are properly concerned with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Collect (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do try not to scream "attack" on spurious grounds. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On pure reliability grounds, I would say both Pink News and Stonewall's own webpages are adequately reliable to say that Philips was given the award - that's a fairly innocuous fact. Whether that information is notable or not and therefore should be on the page is a different question that, I agree, should be answered on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the strongest source is Diva (magazine). The OP didn't make clear that this is a printed-on-paper newsstand magazine widely available in high street news outlets. It doesn't claim to be a news magazine, it's an LGBT lifestyle magazine, but there's no reason to doubt it as a reliable source for an event that no-one disputes actually happened. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you arguing that "sufficient circulation" implies "reliable source"? I fear I do not personally give that much weight as an argument. Collect (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue really isn't reliability. This page, the organization's own page about who received the award, is more than reliable to say that the award was given to Philips. The real issue is whether the page should include the information - and that should be resolved on the talk page or possibly the WP:BLPN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) Which is where I started - until one editor insisted that that board found the sources to be "reliable sources" pre BLP/N <g> and forced me to ask here. The current edit he proposes is

"In November 2011, Phillips received the Stonewall Award for the individual who has gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year"

which includes the entire "opinion" and nothing about the organization giving the "award" (if such it is). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC) There are otehr winners whos award has been discused by RS, I find it odd that we are now exclusing this award in her case.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

James M. Johnson Unreferenced.

as title states, Person is a Associate justice to Washington State Supreme court.

Someone overwrote the previous referenced information with a copy-paste of http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/bios/?fa=scbios.display_file&fileID=jmJohnson. Reverted. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

EUObserver.com

What are opinions of EUObserver.com? Its media kit describes it as the most read website for European affairs after the Financial Times, and it is quite often used as a source by journalists as well as Wikipedia. The puzzle is finding anything written about euobserver.com itself. It is run according to "WHOIS" in partnership with the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities in the European Parliament, an "Eurosceptic" grouping containing parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party. It is possible it has even been financed by this group. (A couple of reports from 2006 suggest this).

For the record, I've come across it in looking at European sovereign debt crisis. I find it puzzling that a source widely used does not appear to have much written about it at all. Any thoughts? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it a news aggregator? If so, we could usually trace the news stories back to the wires or other sources. If it publishes opinion and analysis, then perhaps we can be guided by the notability and qualifications of the commentator. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it appears to have its own journalists, or at least people who write original material for it. One also writes for Red Pepper and occasionally the Guardian, another transferred from a leading Romanian newspaper. None of this looks odd, except the open association with a Eurosceptic group, and occasional references on the non-RS parts of the internet to it being a Eurosceptic site. I'm surprised there is so little information about it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be cited often as a source for books related to the EU[123], so I don't think they are on the fringe. Perhaps their journalists may lean a bit towards "Euroscepticism", but I think scepticism is a desirable quality for a journalist to have. --Nug (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing scepticism with "Euroscepticism", which is a political position. The former is great, but if a source is the latter, we would need to tread carefully in using it because of POV concerns. But apart from that, it does seem to be cited a fair bit. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but I don't think they are overtly "Eurosceptic". There isn't a news source that doesn't have some degree of political bias, they are run by living people after all. It all depends upon the context of use I suppose, I would treat a Murdoch owned news source with some degree of caution when it comes to the Phone hacking scandal, for example. --Nug (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Uneasy Males: The American Men's Movement

I'd like to get some opinions about whether this book would be considered a reliable source for information about the Men's movement and Men's rights. On the downside, it was self-published with iUniverse, and I can find no published reviews of any sort. On the plus side the book's author Edward Lee Gambill had a PhD and was a history professor at St. Cloud State University.[124]. The only other publication, that I can find was a book on the American Civil War period. The Men's movement book is heavily footnoted and seems pretty scholarly, but I'd rather check with others about its suitability before starting to cite it. --Slp1 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's self-published and the author is not a recognised expert in the field, then the book is only reliable for statements the author makes about himself.--FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It rather depends what people understand by "in the field", I think. He was a historian by training and trade, and had published a book in the history "field". The book is basically a history of the men's movement, so I'm interested in hearing whether people think that "the field" refers to the topic (ie men's rights) or the discipline (ie history). --Slp1 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to sign the book off as normal RS history, for the reasons already mentioned. No reviews found for a 2005 book. What a pity he didn't get it professionally published. Looking inside, it seems to have a calm documentary tone and plenty of references. I think, use with caution, don't use for controversial statements and attribute all statements. If it's challenged, look for other sources that deal with the same area. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hypnoweb.net

Is http://www.hypnoweb.net/ a reliable source?

In particular, the BLP Joseph Kennedy (actor) uses http://robin-des-bois.hypnoweb.net/acteurs-secondaires/acteurs-secondaires-saison-2/joseph-kennedy.123.542/ (note: ad popup) as its sole source.

My opinion: it's a community fan site, and as such, isn't reliable. It's also in French—which strikes me as odd, given that the subject is a British actor. If the guy is notable, wouldn't there be English-language news articles about him we could use instead? On the other hand, his name makes him very difficult to search for.

Aside from the above…

User:Joseph30 (talk, contribs) has stated that he's the article's subject and would like the sourced information removed from the article:

• Here: I am joseph Kennedy and just wanted to take out some information. E.g that my parents are divorced and wanted to make the detail about robin hood less significant. The information is already in there in my c.v. Hope this is alright.
• Here: Please leave this as is. I am Joseph kennedy and only want certain info on my page. thank you

But that's a separate issue.

Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with what is RS when it comes to actors. I did click the link thinking that as a French speaker maybe I could offer an opinion. I don't feel much respect for it as a source, shall we say. The popup certainly does not help. The information is minimal and the administrative portions of the site use an informal form of address that is not usual in most "grown-up" sites (tutoyer). It's roughly the equivalent of 4chan, minus the association with Anonymous. I especially would not use it as an authority for any info the subject of this BLP is asking us to remove. HTH Elinruby (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As a fellow Francophone I'd have to second the opinion of Elinruby, Hypnoweb prominently solicits User Generated Content on the front page and discusses the copyright of User Contributions becoming property of Hypnoweb. Looks likes a kind of online forum/content farm.--Voila-pourquoi (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—that was the impression I received from that page, and it's nice to have it confirmed by those who can read the original. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Soomrani

Soomrani (Urduسومرانی )is a sub tribe of Magsi[[Baloch

if anyone speaks Turkish

I'd like an opinion on http://www.e-tarih.org/biyografi.php?b=413&isim=Tiryaki. Google Translate isn't doing very well with it. I am getting the impression that it's a sort of digital juvenile history book. If it looks respectable, I could use a quick summary of any actual facts it might contain. If possible. I'm finding other sources though so this is not anything anybody should spend a lot of time on. The main reason I am asking is that the article I am working on has an extended unattributed quote, supposedly exactly what the man said back in 1601. I *think* it came from here. If so it's probably a homebrew translation as well, which is another problem, but if this is basically a story book, it will simplify decision-making as I won't have to figure out whether the quote actually matters. Just making sure I'm not doing anyone's edits an injustice ;) Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Fictional character appearing in a commercial

I'd assume a fictional character appearing in a commercial is reliable to that fictional character and can be mentioned in an article, but what is the proper way to site a commercial for a network that has a fictional character appear in them? I can provide a youtube link to the commercial, and I saw it on the network myself, but besides a bare link to Youtube, what would be the proper way to cite that? Mathewignash (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Network? Network that has a fictional character? What's the article -- let's start there. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon characters, Hub network, this commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4sZcUMuss Mathewignash (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Bulkhead_(Transformers)#Other_appearances. This is just an example, but I wanted to know the proper way to cite in cases like this.Mathewignash (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to mention this, but exaclty whaqt does this add to the article?, seems to me to be rather trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That entire topic is chock-full of the trivial and banal, unfortunately. Another round of Transformers AfDs is probably in order. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It was an example, I'd just like to know how you cite a commercial besdies just adding a link to Youtube, which seems very sloppy. If you can't answer here, I'd appreciate perhaps being pointed in the right direction where I can find out. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An additional question, are commecials RS?, for example how do you verify it is the character in question, and not a copyright dodging approximation?Slatersteven (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hub is owned by Hasbro. They own all the characters in that commercial. These scenes are taken from Transformers episodes, with the actual voice actors redubbing their lines for Hasbro.Mathewignash (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that youtube clips can be created and edited by anyone. Is this an offical Hub clip or user uploaded? It does not appear to be so how can we verify form this clip this is an undoctored edit?Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

On the original assumption, I'm not convinced a commercial appearance by a fictional character should be used for verifying anything beyond "has appeared in X commercial". If I believe the ads that ran in my childhood comics, many supervillains are completely unable to resist the lure of delicious Hostess (TM) Twinkies (TM) cakes, and Spiderman uses them as a powerful non-lethal weapon, but I'd be reluctant to cite that as canon - even though the comics were published by the same people who owned those characters. --GenericBob (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what its being used for, to show they appeared in the advert, but youtube is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, this video is on the air on the channel. It's real. I cannot provide a link to my television set. I'd like the cite a on-air commercial. I'm sure it can be done. The youtube link is just additional external link, it's not the source itself. Mathewignash (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As its not the source it should not be used for inline citatioin. Thus it should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I already said that the Youtube link isn't a good source, that's why I'm here, I'm asking how you source a commercial. As for the above mention of spider-man and hostess snacks, it's a absolutely reliable to cite that Spider-Man was used in advertising for Hostess products. Mathewignash (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As you accepet its not RS why did you remove the not an RS tag?Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates contains no template for adverts. This implies they are not RS (perhaps becasue of the difficulty in verifying them?). The closest would by TV epsiide, but then would need an air date and time.Slatersteven (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just using cite video, and referencing back to the original airdate on the channel. ThanksMathewignash (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the advertizement would be a reliable source for is the blunt statement "the character appeared in a TV ad for the show". Even then, we would need to have a reasonable expectation that a permanent record of the advertizement exists... that it has been archived someplace that that a member of the public could gain access to if they put enough time and effort into tracking it down (a video library, a museum of television advertizing, etc). If we can be assured of this, then we can call the statement that the character appeared in the advertizement "verifiable". However, even then, I have to ask why anyone would want to mention that a character appeared in an advertizement. The existance of an advertizement would not be enough to indicate WP:Notability (the ad itself counts as a primary source, and we need secondary sources to support a claim of notability) and since the advert was created by the same company that created the character, it would count as a self-serving WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's currently being broadcast, so someone can view it that way. Bedides, you surely can't say that a TV special aired yesterday cannot be cited simply because people cannot yet purchase it on DVD or find it at a library yet? Mathewignash (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

But they will usualy be able to find analysis of a documentry or a spot in the channels website. Its very rare for a TV program to recive zero coverage, even before transmision.Slatersteven (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just looking for examples on wikipedia for citing other commmercials (not that this proves they are doing the citation correctly either, I admit), often times people cite commercials for the characters or plots of upcoming movies and television episodes. There is no source to cite in these cases besides the commercial itself, or in some cases a link to a video streaming site with the the commercial on them. Mathewignash (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Which can be verified latter on (the point that being made) by referance to otehr sources.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxterm draft sources

Can those sources together be considered satisfying WP:V?

1. Czarkoff, Dmitrij (2011-12-05), "Introduction: xxxterm Web Browser", OSNews, retrieved 2011-12-05 (written by author of the article, though edited and published by OSNews staff).
2. Bělka, Jiří (2010-02-25), "XXXTerm: nový prohlížeč postavený na jádře WebKit", Root (in Czech), retrieved 2011-12-07

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you're verifying. The first it could be used to describe the browser. I wouldn't say it lets the page unambiguously pass notability. The second is in Czech and I can't read it, but it looks like a fairly brief comment that may be user-generated; if my surmise is correct, it probably wouldn't be good for much. Pretty much anything can be used to verify something, your question seems to be looking for an answer about reliability or notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My question is about notability, as the answer is needed to determine, whether the article can be moved to mainspace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A relevant started discussion is at User talk:Czarkoff/drafts/Xxxterm, and as I noted there I don't think that it is reliable. mabdul 14:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It? Could You please specify, which of the two references You consider unreliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OSNews is considered reliable. The concern however is that the lack of coverage signifies a lack of notability. In this case, however, the browser is used in a major linux distro so its usage by this distro may confer notability.Smallman12q (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing an article to demonstrate notability is a bit too close to gaming the system for my tastes. Though the draft article looks well-written and the substantial statements about xxxterm's features are sourced, I would say it doesn't really pass notability. I'd be far more comfortable waiting until a source, not to put too fine a point to it, that you didn't write could be found that discussed the browser. This strays from reliable source questions into notability; the reputation of OSNews might allow coverage for reliability, but the fact that you wrote and submitted the article really undercuts (for me) the ability of the source to pass notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Puffery repeated by reliable news source?

A subtle question has arisen regarding a dance video. The question is whether a reputable news source who appears to be repeating promotional puffery may be used to document the puffery as fact. --Noleander (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind ... the matter got resolved. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

skeptoid.com

Sgerbic (talk · contribs) has been adding dozens of external links to skeptoid.com, which is a skeptical blog/podcast/TV show. I think there might be some merit to judicous use of the website, operated by Brian Dunning (skeptic), who has some credibility in my opinion, but this user has been going through the archives and spamming links, for which they've been warned. I've left some in place on topics like Marfa lights and Devil's Footprints, where they seem to have value. I see no value in adding such links to topics like sin and faith. Any opinions? Acroterion (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you - I removed a Skeptoid link from Pseudoscience before noticing your comment here. I completely agree about the Sin and Faith pages, and think the links should also be removed from Scientific method and Creation–evolution controversy (and probably from other articles, but these two in particular.)

Sgerbic, are you affiliated with Skeptoid? (Note that this isn't an accusation, just a question, and not an unreasonable one given your recent edits.) Dawn Bard (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a fan of Skeptoid. I explained to Acroterion on my talk page that I have been saving these edits up for some time waiting till I had a chance to add them into the pages they referred to. Apparently doing so all in one sitting has set off some kind of alarm. If I had made these edits once in a while then we would not be having this conversation. Sgerbic (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove the EL to pseudoscience? Surely a well-written article by someone noteworthy that discusses how to tell what is and is not pseudoscience is worth being included in an article about pseudoscience? Why didn't you remove the EL to the Skeptic Dictionary? * Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscience – Robert Todd Carroll, PhD. What about the article by Coker who is not noteworthy but wrote an article about how to distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

• Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience – Rory Coker, PhD

Here are the other references that were not removed.

• Checklist for identifying dubious technical processes and products – Rainer Bunge, PhD
• Pseudoscience. What is it? How can I recognize it? – Stephen Lower
• Science and Pseudoscience – transcript and broadcast of talk by Imre Lakatos
• Science and Pseudo-Science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Science Needs to Combat Pseudoscience – A statement by 32 Russian scientists and philosophers
• Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism – Steven Dutch
• Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscientific topics and discussion – Robert Todd Carroll
• Why Is Pseudoscience Dangerous? – Edward Kruglyakov

Skeptoid's 15 points on how to recognize pseudoscience fits well in this body of External links. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

These discussions about whether or not an EL should remain, should be discussed on the relevant page. Not here. And reverting an edit without a reason is not good policy. I thought the reason we were on the reliable sources noticeboard page was to discuss if Skeptoid is a reliable source or not?

I would like to add that I take issue with the claim that I am spamming anything. Each External Link I left is unique, and relevant to the page it was left on. Sgerbic (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sgerbic. The site has very good, detailed but consise essays on a wide range of fringe and pseudoscience topics. I've read through several of them and found them well-written and representative of the mainstream view and is well sourced. There is no spamming going on here. The links are added judiciously and appropriately. The reason so many links are being added is the large number of fringe topics covered by the site. This is a valuable reasource for our readers because it covers the topics in a basic, but thorough manner. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My chief concern is where the EL is being added to topics that aren't fringe, sin and faith, as cited above, which I believe leads to NPOV problems.There appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach here that may not be appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. I agree they don't belong on such topics. But as for fringe and psudoscience topics, the site is top notch. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that fringe topics are all too often linked to credulous conspiracy sites or *zomg* sensationalist crap, a skeptoid link may bring some reason to fringe topics, if used appropriately. Acroterion (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect skeptoid and think it would be a good EL on many specific fringey topics. However, indiscriminate use across a zillion articles would be a Bad Thing, and I doubt it's appropriate on most articles about general non-fringe concepts. bobrayner (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The most important thing, though, is that we all take our fingers off the revert button. Reflexive reverts just waste time and wear down goodwill, making it harder to reach a position that everybody's happy with. bobrayner (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Skeptoid is definitely reliable. There are dozens of episodes, so I think it would be easy to go overboard and reference Skeptoid in virtually every Wiki article dealing with pseudoscientific claims. Perhaps a better compromise would be to limit use of Skeptoid to more obscure topics that aren't widely covered. So, for example, there are a million articles on Homeopathy, so perhaps it's not necessary to use Skeptoid as a reference. But, certain UFO sightings, "haunted" castles, and other less widely-covered topics are covered by Skeptoid. Obviously, this isn't an official policy of Wiki, but it may make sense rather than referencing the articles a million times. Thoughts? JoelWhy (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I just wanted to jump back in to say that my removing the skeptoid link from Pseudoscience wansn't based on reliability - I do think skeptoid is reliable. But per WP:EL, reliabilty isn't the only thing to consider. The EL section already had three other links to "how to spot pseudoscience" type articles, and before I noticed this thread here, Sgerbic's edits looked very much like spam to me, and to at least two other Wikipedians. (I now think it's pretty clear that Sgerbic was acting in good faith.)

Also, from WP:EL "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" and "the burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." So the question should be "why add it?" rather than "why not add it?" I don't think I was wrong to remove it, I think it's redundant, but I won't remove it again now that it's been added back. I stand by my assertion above that it should be removed from Scientific method and Creation–evolution controversy - like Acroterion, I think Dunning might have something to offer on the "fringier" topics, but there are many more appropriate resources on the harder science articles. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

My take on this is similar to Dawn Bard's. There are often many sources that deal with our topics and relevance by itself cannot be sufficient for their inclusion - I think that's pretty obvious. In this case, while Dunning's Skeptoid podcasts/transcripts may serve a useful purpose in bringing pseudoscience to the attention of the iTunes masses, this very aspect of them suggests that they are unlikely to add anything new to our articles - the well-developed ones at least. A better approach, I'd say, would be to read the article, read the podcast transcript and if anything is covered better in the podcast, then use it to improve the article and cite it in the references.

A related concern is that of visibility and balance. The main sources for an article get listed, quite unobtrusively, in the References section. Those in External links, or Further reading appear far more prominently, and should, perhaps, be required to have a commensurate degree of importance to the topic.  —SMALLJIM  15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes the information on this web site reliable? I see above that some of us may like the broadcasts and the presentation of content on the site, but that isn't how we determine reliability. The web site is self-published, not peer-reviewed. Has Dunning established reliability by publishing in reliable third-party publications?

The web site is definitely promotional, pushing Dunning's broadcasts, live shows, books, videos, swag, and requests for subscriptions ("tips") which detracts both from claims of reliability and from the general utility of the site for this project. There are other sites with similar content that are not promotional. Jojalozzo 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal blog/podcast thing. That's generally a no-no for "reliable source". He just synthesizes other people's research, so why settle for the middle man when you could just go to the original research? I can also tell you that he says a lot of incorrect things in regards to climate change and a few other topics. In addition, he's been indicted for wire fraud and has some legal troubles according to his his wiki page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These 3 sites for bio info on Kristanna Loken

Someone added biographical information to the Kristanna Loken article, citing these three sites:

• http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/kristanna-loken-net-worth/
• http://www.joblo.com/hollywood-celebrities/hottie-profile/kristanna-loken
• http://www.reelz.com/person/226706/kristanna-loken/

Are they reliable? Nightscream (talk) 08:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Second probably not, first and third are dubious. All are being used for her date of birth, and after a bit of googling I've seen two years mentioned - 1978 and 1979. Based on WP:DOB I would suggest they be removed along with the DOB. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Nightscream, I think it should be mentioned on the talk page the reason why the date of birth was excluded in the first place (because the first results that came in the google for "Kristanna Loken Date of Birth" are the ones that I've put). If the users knew the reason, they wouldn't WP:BOLD. --ConCelFan (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Twitter updates for bio information

Can Twitter updates by a BLP subject be cited for biographical info in their article? Can this one be used to add information to the Brian Michael Bendis article about his children? Nightscream (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. A reliable source will no doubt report the information: then, we can too. Andrew Dalby 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with direct testimony from individuals is that it is often untrue (note: I'm not saying Bendis doesn't have children, simply making a general rather than specific point). Celebs in particularly will dismiss or change elements of their past to best suit their current situation. For example, I do some work on a certain R&B popstar's article - in her version of her personal history, she had a tough street-kid who was discovered a couple of years ago in the ghetto, the reality according to reliable sources is that she went to stage school, has a posh double-barrled name and starred in a number of cheesy TV and radio shows before she got into pop. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the questions of whether the tweeter is presenting their public persona rather than the reality of their life , There are serious issues about who is actually operating the account (even when it is a verified account). Just because a page is verified does not guarantee that the verified person is controlling it [125] [126][127] and i would say it is not reliable as a source other than for saying x's twitter account said "". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beau Hindman articles on joystiq reliable source for a videogame.

Hi, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyriad there is some discussion whether articles on joystiq, specifically articles by Beau Hindman about Illyriad are considered reliable sources for the purpose of determining notability. Some expert input would be appreciated. Yoenit (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For info on the various: Joystiq About, sub property Massively About/Team and Massively Contribution/Editorial Info also Beau Hindman About. Rescendent (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not expert input, but I know A) it has a staff and so is likely reliable and B) we've used it quite a bit in the past. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Few body systems

The Asia Pacific center for Theoretical Physics [128] [member countries] recently held a conference on Few-body systems "Fifth Asia-Pacific Conference on Few-Body Problems in Physics 2011" on 22-26 August 2011 [129]. On of the speakers was Yeong E. Kim [130], Professor of Physics and Group Leader Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group of Purdue University. In his presentation “Nuclear Reactions in Micro/Nano-Scale Metal Particles” Kim presented how his "Theory of Bose-Einstein Condensation Nuclear Fusion (BECNF) in Metal" can explain "the following experimental observations either qualitatively or quantitatively. Experimental Observations from both electrolysis and gas loading experiments (as of 2010, not complete) (over several hundreds publications !)": Coulomb barrier, excess heat, 4He production, Tritium production, nuclear ashes, hot spots and craters, radiation, "heat-after-death", ...

He also discussed his "Generalized BECNF Theory for Hydrogen-Nickel System" The paper for which is in preprint [131] and he concluded "Recently, generalized BECNF theory is used to make theoretical predictions for BECNF processes in hydrogen-nickel systems." In the speech at the conference (proceedings) and the preprint paper Kim is directly referring that his BECNF theory can be applied to the Energy Catalyzer.

Is this enough RS for a mention in the article Energy Catalyzer that Yeong E. Kim has recently proposed a theoretical explanation for the device. ?

By all means few body systems is not fringe, is it ? --POVbrigand (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is my question unclear, or is this the wrong noticeboard ? Just let me know, Thanks. Or am I just too impatient ? :-) --POVbrigand (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough question, and I misunderstood it at first. The Few-body systems article seems a complete red herring, that's not where you want the source used. Let me rephrase the question, maybe that will make it simpler for others to weigh in too.

“ The Energy Catalyzer is a supposed cold fusion heat source. Yeong E. Kim,[132] Professor of Physics and Group Leader Purdue Nuclear and Many-Body Theory Group of Purdue University wrote and presented a paper[133] that proposes preliminary theoretical explanations of the reported results of the device. Can the paper be cited in our article on the device? See also article talk page discussion. ”

If that is the question, I'd say yes. The relevant part of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is Self-published sources: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Given his titles and positions, I'm assuming that Kim has been published before on Bose-Einstein condensation nuclear fusion, and though I don't claim to understand the physics of his paper, it does seem to say it might explain the Energy Catalyzer, then that is certainly a relevant field, so he is an established expert on the topic. So WP:RS is met. Now the question is of due weight. The paper is mostly or completely dedicated to explaining the Energy Catalyzer, it's not just a side mention, so we're not overplaying the weight of the EC in the paper. And our article Energy Catalyzer is huge, with many statements about it by other scientists, so a sentence would not seem to be overshadowing those. So I'd say it's OK. --GRuban (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy

“ In 2011 the British Homeopathic Association said that 400 General Practitioners used homeopathy in their everyday practice. The British Homeopathic Dental Association (BHDA) claimed to have 69 dentists, while the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons has 36 vets listed as members. ”

I find all these references doubtful - all promotional organisations, and I don't think them particularly apropos to the article content. 86.** IP (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They are professional organisations, and as far as I know it's general practice to use such organisations for this kind of information. Based on my own experience in Germany, where lots of regular physicians prescribe homeopathy in some cases (happened to me, and I was not asking for it or expecting it in any way) -- maybe as a placebo -- these numbers look low, not high. And how is the number of people practising homeopathy in one way or another irrelevant to the prevalence of homeopathy? Hans Adler 14:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that this is another instance of your battle against articles whose topic you don't like. The present article was split off the main homeopathy article because the section(s) on prevalence and regulation kept getting longer and longer. Both prevalence and regulation of homeopathy differ significantly between different countries, and except for some WHO document that didn't go into much detail nobody seems to have made an effort to give a good overview. By collecting so many pointers, this article gives important background information, e.g. for decision makers who are tasked with regulating homeopathy. The small viewer numbers (less than 1/40th of those of the main article) show that this is not of general interest, though it does interest some. Hans Adler 14:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rather extreme assumption of bad faith, when I fully intend to be bound by consensus here. 86.** IP (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Katzrin and the claim of being the "largest city"

A user has found a collection of news reports that call Katzrin the "largest town" in the Golan Heights. Those sources are as follows: Fox News Israel National News Haaretz AFP and The New York Times. These, with the exception of Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) would all normally be considered reliable sources, nobody disputes that. However, the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics publishes official data on populations of towns. The latest data from the CBS (here) shows that Katzrin (listed there as Qazrin) has a population, as of the end of 2009, of 6500 people. The same data shows that Majdal Shams, a Druze village in the Golan, had a population of 9600 and about twice the growth rate of Katzrin. So the official data shows that Katzrin is ~32% smaller than Majdal Shams and also growing at a slower rate. Yet despite this, a user insists that we still say that Katzrin is the "largest town in the Golan". Are news reports more reliable than official census data for the size of cities? nableezy - 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The five news sources are unequivocal in that they say that Katzrin is the largest city/town on the Golan. Conversely, we are required to draw an inference that it is the second largest city from the census data. In light of that, I believe that we should abide by the reliable news sources.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The news sources are directly refuted by the census data. I await uninvolved views on whether or not a news reporter is more reliable on the population of a town than an official census is. nableezy - 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The "data" is expressly contradicted by the New York Times, AFP, Israel National News, Fox News and Haaretz--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, which is why I am asking for views on what is more reliable, the census or the news reports. nableezy - 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say both? "According to The New York Times, AFP, Israeli National News, Fox News and Haaretz, X; however, the official Israeli statistics say Y." Also, check they're referring to the same thing - a metropolitan area can mean something very different from the city proper. 86.** IP (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is in the lead, and I think it would be awfully silly to say news reports say that Katzrin is the largest town, however the official census shows it is several thousand people smaller than Majdal Shams. Neither of these places are "metropolitan areas", they are both relatively small towns. nableezy - 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, how do you know that Katzrin is a very small town? Do you speak from persoanl experience? Have you ever been to Katzrin? Or are you engaging in more Original Research. I maintain that five reliable sources, the New York Times, AFP, Israel National News, Fox News and Haaretz each refer to it as the largest city/town on the Golan. But 86.** IP's suggestion is a move in the right direction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it is 6600 people? nableezy - 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• From Haaretz The magistrate's court in Katzrin, the largest town in the Golan Heights, will close for a year

• From Fox News Other places, however, like Katzrin, the largest city in the Golan Heights, is on UPS' delivery route.

• From AFP The movie, shown at a mall in Katzrin, the largest city in the Golan

• From Israel National News The wave of building is at a record high, Sammy Bar-Lev, chairman of the regional council in Katzrin, the region’s largest city, told Arutz 7.

• From NYTimes A historian and an iconoclastic politician, Mr. Harel, 64, spoke in a cafe in Katzrin, the largest town in the Golan

Folks, I really don't think there's much of a question here. The sources are unequivocal in that Katzrin is in fact the largest city/town on the Golan,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This might be an interesting example for the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability fistfight about the phrase "verifiability not truth". I would say that the "largest town" fact is verifiable but probably not true. Might I suggest a wording something like "Katzrin is often said to be the largest town in the Golan Heights, though the Druze village of Maidal Shams is probably larger." With the appropriate references in-line. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Might work. Interesting suggestion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

However, I do have a point to add. These news sources are generally accepted as reliable sources with strong, independent vetting processes. Therefore, it stands to reason that in addition to being verifiable, it is also true. Do you think that all the noted sources would just take the statement out of a hat? All five?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be down to terms. There's some wiggle room between "most populous named area" and "largest city" 86.** IP (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you formulate a suggestion?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We are now watching as a user claims that a collection of news reports are more accurate than census data for the population of a town. I really cannot believe this. Majdal Shams is not simply probably larger than Katzrin, it is larger according to official data on the size of each town. How a collection of off-hand mentions in news articles can compare that requires a bit of explanation. nableezy - 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, I was just putting out a half-formed suggestion. "Katzrin is often said to be the largest town in the Golan Heights, though the Druze village of Majdal Shams is larger." may well be better. This still covers the case, pointed out by 86**IP of whether or not a village is a town. There is a legal distinction in many countries between a town and a village but it seems better not to delve into such detail. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to harp on probably, my point was that we have official data on the question, and even though your sentence above may be true (I would question often), and even acceptable if we have to include what we know to be an error, we should recognize that WP:RS doesnt say that every source, even if usually reliable, is reliable for everything, and that there is such a thing as a more reliable source. When we have a relatively weak source, such as a newspaper article on a completely unrelated topic, and we have much stronger source, such as official census data, we dont need to try to include the mistakes of the less reliable source. If one of the sources were actually focused on Katzrin and its size and the other localities in the Golan and that said that Katzrin is the largest town the case for including it would be much stronger. But here we have an off-hand mention of a village as being the largest town for which we have a much higher quality source directly refuting. WP:V doesnt mean that anything that you can verify to be in a reliable source should be included, it gives that as a minimum threshold. Here we have an instance in which we know that these off-hand mentions are incorrect. But yet we have a user insisting on including what he knows to be false. As far as the question of village and town, both Katzrin and Majdal Shams are classified, as best as I can tell, as Israeli local councils. nableezy - 00:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Sources are not equal, even if they are generally considered "reliable". The Central Bureau of Statistics is the preeminent authority on locality populations and we have up-to-date information from it that Majdal Shams is substantially larger. Not just a little bit larger but a lot larger. Moreover, this is something that newspapers are not particularly reliable on since they do not have any resources to count populations. Most of the offered sources are either out of date or (Arutz 7) not reliable sources even for news. Actually this is a case of some people trying to wikilawyer stuff into the article that they know to be wrong. Zero^talk 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia. Always brings the stupid. Obviously census data is the best data for this, and news articles frequently get things like this wrong. And throw the NYT "source" right out: It's from 1999. Even if it was accurate then, it may not be accurate now (and would be superseded by census data that's far more current).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 2011 article from The Economist that says Majdal Shams is largest. [134]. I support giving all the info; that's what we normally do when reliable sources disagree. --GRuban (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to clarify, so:

It's possible for Kazrem to be considered the largest city without being the most populous area if, for example, Majdal Shams is not considered a city (for instance, it's a farming area with little governmental infrastructure), or if the borders or count are done differently between sources. It may even have to do with non-population factors, like area (this is less likely) or economics. I don't know if any of these are true, but it's a possible reason why sources might disagree. It's also possible that newspapers are lazy - bad facts do propagate through the media sometimes, if one article gets it wrong, particularly if the first newspaper to report gets it wrong, due to the high degree of "follow the leader" in the media.. 86.** IP (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers are lazy is the answer. Both of these places are relatively built up population centers, and both are, as far as I have been able to find out, classified by Israel as Local council (Israel). nableezy - 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility to consider is that at some point in the not-too-distant past, Majdal Shams was actually smaller than Katzrin, but growing at a higher rate (as noted in the OP) overtook it in population. It would not be unusual for commentators to still apply the "largest city" epithet to Katzrin even if it was out-of-date - and in the case of older news reports, quite possibly accurate at the time. --RexxS (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I found 2003–2004 figures and Majdal Shams was easily the biggest then too. I'm afraid the explanation (apart the simple cause of human error) is one that would not surprise anyone who knows Israel. Majdal Shams is an Arab location, while Katzrin is a Jewish location. Arab locations tend to be overlooked. Zero^talk 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP has hit the nail on the head with this comment and I could not have said it better myself. It's possible for Katzrin to be considered the largest city without being the most populous area if, for example, Majdal Shams is not considered a city (for instance, it's a farming area with little governmental infrastructure), or if the borders or count are done differently between sources. It may even have to do with non-population factors, like area (this is less likely) or economics. This is precisely why we have to go with what reliable sources say rather than what we infer from what we think they mean.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, no, that isnt true. Both Majdal Shams and Katzrin are classified as local councils, and these off-hand mentions in newspaper articles on different subjects are not anywhere near the reliability of official census data. You are attempting to put in an article what you know to be false. I cannot honestly think of many more bad-faith tactics than that. Answer this question, is Katzrin larger than Majdal Shams? nableezy - 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You were the one who brought this issue to RSN and when you don't like the direction that it's heading, you engage in ad hominems. Referring to my attempts to making an encyclopedia more accurate as "bad-faith tactics" is a personal attack and is disruptive. To answere your question, I'd say we have to go with what the reliable sources say and not what we think we want them to say.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And the reliable source (the census) says that Majdal Shams is larger. I see you arent disputing that. nableezy - 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear -- any argument that old, non-specific newspaper articles (in that they aren't in-depth explorations of "Which town is bigger") are preferred, or equal too, the census data is pure horseshit. The argument is being deployed by someone who edits exclusively with an ideological agenda (that is, you). The people on the other side of this are ideologically opposed but they're right. This is isn't a debatable issue, or even one of nuance. The math is the fricking math. The reason this horseshit argument is being used is because you actually think the pro-settlement argument for keeping the Golan heights is strengthened somehow by skewing the content of an encyclopedia article (though how the argument is strengthened or weakened by the fact that Katzrin is the 2nd largest rather than the largest town is rather beyond me). There is no reasonable or good faith argument to favor news articles, of much less reliability than census data, in this case. It's purely about propaganda for you. The sophistry about "maybe they MEAN land area, etc..." is also a waste of time. If you must, say Katzrin "is the second most populous by population and the largest by land area" (assuming you can find a specific, reliable source that lists towns in the Golan by land area.) Finally, these kinds of arguments being tolerated endlessly on wikipedia (rather than being dispatched with by people who know the difference) is just one of the governance nightmares of wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with Bali Ultimate's summary. I don't consider myself to be ideologically involved. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

routledge

i would like to know if this source [135] is wp:rs.-- mustihussain  22:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the top of the page. Reliable sources are only reliable in a context. What article would you use it in, to make what claim? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also which author and chapter? As a whole, Routledge is a well respected academic publisher, and this book is a collection of academic chapters. Academic works are normally reliable in the field that they make explicit claims in: for example, this book would broadly be reliable in the area of contemporary politics and social politics of Islam in the West. It wouldn't be reliable for Islamic history, or the history of medicine, or the politics of Islam in, for example, Indonesia. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

i was thinking of contemporary politics and islamophobia, and i got my answer. thanks.-- mustihussain  05:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Sugarscape a reliable source?

I was wondering is http://www.sugarscape.com a reliable source?

Please have a look at the top of the page. Reliable sources are only reliable in a context. What article would you use it in, to make what claim? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Causes (company)

Facebook app. Can this be used, along with other charity performance monitors, for information on the Facebook fundraising performance of a particular charity in determining notability for Wikipedia? Rumiton (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be a primary source for its own activities. Can you give a specific example?   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite the case. I am suggesting it may be considered a secondary source for the performance of the charities and non-profits under its umbrella. Its function is to invite charities and other not-for-profit groups to use Facebook to increase their membership and raise funds. Causes verifies that they have non-profit status before it accepts them, then it displays their mission statement and links to their homepage. Then it monitors their success and grades their performance against that of other groups. Rumiton (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to a specific page or pages which you'd like to use as a source, and to the pages which describe the process you've outlined?   Will Beback  talk  21:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. Here is a rundown of the way Causes operates on Facebook, acting as a “platform” for non-profit groups to feature their work, and to invite people to join and contribute.[136]. Here is a page of 12 of the highest-performing non-profits that Causes is featuring this week. [137]. Nearly all of them already have a Wikipedia article, but some do not. Perhaps they should, and their Causes listing should help them achieve this? Rumiton (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What I see is that the site says it has "500,000 member-created causes". If so, I don't see how inclusion confers notability. If there's no specific page which is going to be referenced, and no specific assertion for which the website is being proposed as a source, then it's impossible to make a determination.   Will Beback  talk  04:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Not mere inclusion, but the statistical information they gather. The number of people who join the particular cause on Facebook, the amount of money they raise, the comparisons they make with similar organisations. That stuff. Rumiton (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Jawa Report (aka MyPetJava)

Is this a reliable source? It is used in several places (e.g: the Tawakel Karman article, to source statements about the groups' naming and its founder's opinions). Initially it seemed to me that it is a blog, and an extreme one at that, but I saw that its article says it is frequently quoted by many mainstream news providers, including The New York Times. Jeff Song (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of reliable media reports as secondary sources to support primary sources

  1. A full citation of the source in question.
  2. A link to the source in question.
  3. The article in which it is being used. For example article name
  4. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting.
  5. Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

1. "Giant asteroid passes near Earth" BBC News, November 9, 2011 and "Asteroid 2005 YU55 passes close by Earth" The Washington Post, November 9, 2011

2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15572634 and http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/asteroid-2055-yu55-passes-close-by-earth-how-close-did-it-get/2011/11/09/gIQAdQpw5M_story.html

3. 2005 YU55

4. On November 8, 2011, NASA released a statement mentioning a number of puzzling structures on the surface of the asteroid, which were detected as it passed near the Earth.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2005_YU55#Strange.2FPuzzling_structures

Diff of deletion of references: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_YU55&diff=465285428&oldid=465241886

Other editors are claiming the BBC and Washington Post are "low-quality" sources and that press releases from NASA (a primary source) are sufficient. They have deleted the press report references, claiming they are inaccurate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Per WP:SCIRS#Use up-to-date evidence "While articles should be kept up to date by citing current literature, care should be taken to avoid recentism, focusing too much on new sources that have not yet been evaluated by the relevant community." delete the lot about puzzling or strange structures. Pre-press reports of data are readily misinterpreted—this is a perfect example of where data has not fully been evaluated. Await scholarly publication of sources analysing the surface of 2005 YU55. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Also from WP:SCIRS (the lead-in): "Scientific information should be based on reliable published sources and should accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or standard handbooks and reference guides, and high-quality non-specialist publications. Although news reports are sometimes inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories, they may be useful when discussing the non-technical context or impact of science topics, particularly controversial ones." No mention of government press releases. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, press releases are mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_%28natural_sciences%29#Other_sources Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In these sort of fields, media reports are almost never going to be secondary sources in the way that we want them for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not news. We actually require our secondary scientific sources to possess the expertise to make meaningful summary and commentary on primary sources, At present it seems no such secondary sources exist, and there is no compelling reason for the NASA press release on "puzzling structures" to be in the article at present. Wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, preferably as part of a systematic review or similar. If this issue is really so significant, it's certain that academics will be quite capable of providing us with a decent secondary source in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that all the material in the article that is not sourced from peer-reviewed scholarly journals also be removed, or just the one line that has shown notability by its coverage in the mainstream press? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Popular reactions in a science article can definitely be sourced to newspapers; if they're WEIGHTy enough. "With the observation of object FRED2014 being on a collision course with Canberra, the Prime Minister of Australia said, "Bloody hell, lets evacuate."(Sydney Morning Herald 1 March 2015)." But content that falls under the SCI in SCIRS should not primarily be sourced to popular sources or "primary" scientific sources. If there's already a secondary (ie: journal article) source then sometimes it is nice to include "non-expert" readable summaries that are correct in addition to the secondary source. But the article should still be written out of the reliable scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo has failed to describe the problem. We are dealing with a currency issue. On November 8, NASA published a press release announcing the release of the asteroid radar film. Subsequent coverage by the popular media referred to this initial coverage. However, more recent coverage on November 11, superseded the initial observations and replaced the speculative "puzzling" and "strange" reports.[138] Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the problem currently (as I understand it from looking at the deletion diff and reading the article talk page discussion) is that this line in the article was based only on one primary source (press releases from NASA), so I added mainstream press reports in order to provide secondary sources. But the secondary sources were deleted. I should also add that this was widely reported in the mainstream press, so that readers looking for this in the article would likely be surprised not to see it mentioned there, as I was. Ghostofnemo (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand that initial, speculative popular media reports of a NASA report are superseded by newer releases? Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NASA has made a conjecture as to what the "structures" are, but their follow-up report doesn't appear to be definitive and has not been discussed by reliable secondary sources (as far as I know). Even if they did release sufficient evidence to prove exactly what the structures are, and it was being discussed in secondary sources, you'd still want to note the fact that they were noticed in the first place. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Much of astronomical observation is "conjecture" and far from "definitive". In fact, most scientific "facts" are based on underlying theories that can't be described as "definitive". Finally, there's nothing wrong with using NASA as a reliable source to cover this topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, do you think Richard C. Hoagland was right when he claimed that YU55 was a UFO and shaped like the Death Star from Star Wars? Do you think the "structures" might be artificial? Wikipedia is not here to support fringe theories or fear mongering. When peer-reviewed papers are put out about the YU55 2011 passage they can be added to the article as reliable sources. Your thought process concerns me and does NOT make sense to the other editors of the YU55 article. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe resolution 1580

Creation and evolution in public education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Is www.breakingchristiannews.com a reliable source for commentary on this resolution?
• Is this article from the Evangelical Church in Germany's website a secondary source on an Evangelical Church in Germany conference? (It seems unlikely)
• Is having two full sections ('Drafting and adoption' & 'Content') based purely on primary sources appropriate per WP:PSTS ("Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.")? For myself, I don't see how having this much detail on the drafting, adoption and contents of a resolution by an organisation, that is in any case purely advisory, rather than having any actual authority, is needed.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Some comments on that article (the discussion is actually between User:Hrafn and me):
  • Not perfect (it's not a major news agency), but it is a secondary source without specific reasons to suspect. I don't insist on that particular source.
  • While speaking German, I don't see in the article that the conference was held by the Evangelical Church in Germany.
  • First, those are not based purely on primary sources (not only the breakingchristiannews.com, but also IHEU is not a primary source). Second, use of primary sources is not forbidden and in this specific case they are the best - giving precise data on the full texts of documents involved, on the minutae of the PACE sitting, on the division of votes at the adoption of the resolution.Fuseau (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • P.S. Resolutions of UN General Assembly are, as a rule, also not binding, but WP has lots of detailed articles on them (and also on some PACE resolutions: 1481 (2006); 1416(2005)). It's not a coincidence - those assemblies represent a lot of countries (PACE - 47).Fuseau (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • P.P.S. A fuller reference to WP:PSTS would also include that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care". --Fuseau (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1. "Specific reasons to suspect": (i) it appears to be self-published. (ii) It appears to be actively promoting a WP:FRINGE agenda. (iii) It contains a disclaimer at the bottom of the page disavowing substantive editorial oversight of the contents.
2. I clearly misread the ECG piece -- easy enough to do when you're being bombarded with foreign-langauge sources. I'm striking that query.
3. The IHEU was only cited for the results of a single vote, not for any analytic or evaluative claims.
4. The UN General Assembly has far, far, far more prominence than the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. And in any case its deliberations are generally not reported in such vote-by-vote, clause-by-clause obsessive detail. I would further point out that the Parliamentary Assembly (unlike the UN General Assembly) would appear to have been largely superseded by EU institutions that have similar geographic coverage but do actually have teeth.
5. I would question whether two whole sections (almost) entirely primary sourced (with the only exceptions being a single unreliable source and the results of a single vote) amounts to "only with care".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Are Google N-Grams a reliable source?

The Source in question: Google Books NGram viewer, charting uses of the term Southern Levant from 1500 until 2008 http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Southern+Levant&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0

The Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Levant#cite_note-1

The Exact Statement being supported: "use of the term was extremely rare until at least 1967." (I edited this phrase a bit recently for the sake of compromise, the editor who first posted the source hasn't opined on my edit, so it looks different on the Southern Levant page currently)

The Talk Page Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southern_Levant&diff=465828619&oldid=465806458

Just curious as to your views as to whether Google N-Grams can be used as a reliable source. Thanks. Drsmoo (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a tool, not a source, it just happens to be online. Using its results is original research. --GRuban (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It cannot be used as a source. It may be used to help editorial decisions, but shouldn't be taken as the word of God.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As Google NGrams are primary sources for bibliometrics, using them directly would constitute original research. Sadly we need to wait for bibliometricians, linguists, historical dictionary editors and the like to comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Prefix Magazine reliable for Featured articles?

I nominated "Rehab" for a featured article. However, in the article there are two sources ([139] and [140]) from Prefix Magazine which are questioned at the FAC. Can you tell me ... Is Prefix Magazine a reliable FAC source? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These two appear to be unedited blog posts: unreliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Vexnews

This article from Vexnews was added to Geoff Shaw (politician). Is it a reliable source for a BLP? StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I would argue not. The wikipedia page for Vexnews states that it's user-generated content and the comments by other newspapers found in that page's lead suggest it has a less than stellar reputation. BLP pages are meant to be deliberately conservative so if the two links are genuine news stories it's probably better to get them from more reliable newspapers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that doesn't make sense - Wikipedia's article on Vexnews says the total opposite, giving examples of the multiple scoops they have had. Granted, Vexnews is unorthodox and not mainstream, but that does not mean it's unreliable. So long as the Vexnews article says otherwise, we can't assume different. Commking (talk)

The examples of "scoops" are just that - examples; in other words, primary sources held up as examples of how the news site "scooped" other agencies. Many of the sources cited on the page don't mention Vex at all [141], [142], [143], [144], one is a youtube video on Vex's own account [145]. Much of the coverage in actual reliable sources that explicitly discusses the site is focused on its muckraking reputation. The Vex article itself requires an overhaul to remove a lot of the dubious information and sourcing. The reason BLP is strict is because wikipedia can really fuck up people's lives. It's for reasons like these that wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source.

I don't think any of this suggests the website can be relied on for information that can seriously impact people's lives. There appear to be other sources available (looks like Shaw's own website might say something) and it would be better to use them in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people don't like Vexnews, granted. It's not mainstream, granted. But unreliable? Nothing to support that. I could argue the Herald Sun is unreliable - they print loads of BS. Should we stop referencing anything from Rupert Murdoch too? --Commking (talk)

But we're talking about Vex news, not the Herald Sun (which perhaps shouldn't be cited, but that doesn't mean Vex should be). I think I read that they publish their stories anonymously as well? Can't find it after a quick look. I still think you're better off verifying the story in a venue with a better reputation; Vex's rep doesn't look good, and reputation is an aspect to consider according WP:RS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG says "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." It says nothing about non-mainstream news. I guess that means we would need a specific consensus about the site before we use it. StAnselm (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Islam

The CIA [146] states:

• "Shia Islam represents 10-20% of Muslims worldwide... Ismaili faith: A sect of Shia Islam... Alawi faith: Another Shia sect of Islam... Druze faith: A highly secretive tradition and a closed community that derives from the Ismaili sect of Islam...
• Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population".

Someone is using this CIA info in the Islam article and misinterpreting it as Sunnis being at least 75% and Shia's 10-20%. I ask where does the other 5% or so go? Can this CIA info be considered reliable in Islam article since it doesn't add up to 100%? There is no other source that mention Sunnis at 75% or anywhere in the 70s. They all say Sunnis are '85-90%' today. See the list of 10 sources I presented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Percentage of Sunnis and Shias in Islam. I respect the CIA in many cases but I have pointed out the errors it has made on Afghanistan. See Talk:Islam#Third party intervention re Sunni numbers.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were over 100% I might worry, but a missing 5% simply suggests they aren't enumerating the myriad splinter sects that exist. A way of navigating the issue might be attribution ("The CIA says...") or "Estimates range from..." Of the 10 sources you list on AN, none really specialize in Islam and the best way to resolve might be to find somewhere that has a focus on primarily Islam and using that. A bit of digging doesn't really turn up anything I would consider conclusive; the Encyclopedia of Islam cites Encyclopedia of Britannica's 85% figure [147]. That's sort-of helpful. Overall I would say the world factbook would be considered reliable but not definitive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out there are other groups that call themselves muslims - aside from Sunni's and Shia's. Such as Bahai's, Ahmadiyyan's etc. Some Sunni's don't even recognise Shia's as muslims. -- Commking (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NSFW images in references to news articles?

Recently, I noticed that some references in Russian legislative election, 2011 are to articles in Russian tabloids that have adds or story images that contain mild nudity. Is there any sort of wiki policy about this, or a way to put some sort of NSFW tag next to the link? I realize there's nothing wrong with nudity in the context of many articles on wikipedia, for something as unrelated like this it seems like we could conceivably save some people some grief by giving them a head's up. Any thoughts? a13ean (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't go to reliability. The wiki policy is WP:NOTCENSORED and concepts around appropriateness of sources for their article. If the articles in the newspapers are appropriate to source the encyclopaedia article, then we use them. We don't enforce a "no-grief" policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this without it sounding weird, but would it be possible for you to give the links to the mild nudity? Contra Fifelfoo, and depending on what the source is being used for, I think it may well go to reliability. If we are quoting the opinion of Elena, 22, from Kalingrad, then we should find something else. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is page 3 spillover into other articles, not "FWOAAAR, ELENA CRITIQUES THESE BOURGEOIS FOIBLES!!!" being used for its incisive political analysis. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. But are you assuming correctly? I think it would be useful to see the sources. For research purposes only. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Eurabia

An article in Race & Class by Matt Carr (abstract here, full text available there) is being cited to include a comparison of the conspiracy theory Eurabia to the conspiracy theory Zionist Occupation Government. The article is cited by a number of other works. Jayjg has argued that this is a WP:REDFLAG claim and that Matt Carr's view being included on this violates WP:UNDUE. I'll raise the issue of UNDUE at NPOV/N, but for the issue of the source not being suitable for a "redflag" claim, is this source reliable for the content in this diff? nableezy - 00:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any problem in the proposed text: It is from a notable peer-reviewed journal, and helps put the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory into a broader context. I'd say that Carr's article was a fine source for an overview of the issue. If there is an argument about balance, the answer is to find sources of similar weight arguing another position, rather than excluding this one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See comment below. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Race & Class is peer reviewed, this article was peer reviewed, this article is specifically on the topic of the encyclopaedia article and was reviewed as such. Carr's academic opinion, at page 9, is clear, "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s pre- posterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US. Yet her book has been well received, not only by established heralds of the Islamic threat, such as Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes and Oriana Fallaci, but by respected historians such as Niall Ferguson and Churchill’s biographer Martin Gilbert, who, whatever their political views, might at least be expected to recognise the absence of historical discipline or methodology when they see it." This clearly supports the diff indicated as far as reliability grounds go. The intellectual history, the genealogy of this idea, is clearly put in a journal dedicated to issues of race and racialism. The diff could be more strongly worded, using a non-attributed version given that this is Race & Class. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Carr can't have an "academic opinion", because he's not an academic. He's a freelance journalist. If the comparison is so apt, why haven't any actual academics made it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)